Re: SUO: Almost-Final Ballot Questions
Frank,
At 09:14 AM 5/19/2003 -0400, Frank Farance wrote:
I agree with your categorization of standards and where SUO fits. It looks
to me like 5.1, 5.2, 5.7 and 5.8 are relevant.
> 5.1 basic standard: standard that has a wide-ranging coverage or
> contains general provisions for one particular field. NOTE -- A basic
> standard may function as a standard for direct application or as a basis
> for other standards.
>
> 5.2 terminology standard: standard that is concerned with terms,
> usually accompanied by their definitions, and sometimes by explanatory
> notes, illustrations, examples, etc..
>
> 5.7 interface standard: standard that specifies requirements
> concerned with the compatibility of products or systems at their points
> of interconnection.
>
> 5.8 standard on data to be provided: standard that contains a
> list of characteristics for which values or other data are to be stated
> for specifying the product, process or service. NOTE -- Some standards,
> typically, provide for data to be stated by suppliers, others by purchasers.
>
> > ------------------------------------------
> >
> > Ballot Question #1 (Latest Draft from Adam Pease):
> >
> > "Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working Group
> > commence work on the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO) version 1.51
> > [April 11, 2003] posted at:
> > http://ontology.teknowledge.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/SUO/Merge.t
> > xt?rev=1.49&content-type=text/plain with the intent of developing it into
> > a final SUO document."
>
>I can't support this motion because I don't understand (yet) what kind of
>standard this will be. I can't tell "what conforms" to this kind of document.
I put a sample document at
<http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/FormalSUOdraft.rtf> after
discussion with you about what would be required at the "draft
standard. It includes the following conformance clause that I developed
after discussions on this list, I think a year ago. Would you like the
motion to reference that document instead?
Here's the conformance clause.
Implementations of SUO are "ontologies" or "information models".
A conforming implementation is an ontology or information model O such that
all three of the following rules are satisfied:
1. For every term T occurring in both O and the SUO, the axioms for T
in O must be exactly those axioms for T in the SUO whose component terms
all occur in the language of O.
2. Every term T in O
a. appears in the SUO, or
b. has axioms in O and the axioms are well-formed formulas of SUO-KIF
(or when translated from the language used for O into SUO-KIF is a
well-formed formula of SUO-KIF) containing only the most specific
appropriate terms which are axiomatized in the SUO or
c. is axiomatized in using terms which have property 2b.
3. O is internally consistent and it is consistent with the SUO: a
contradiction cannot be derived by means of first-order logic from the set
of statements belonging either to O or to the SUO.
Adam