RE: SUO: Latest Draft Ballot Questions
Dear Pierre,
I fear you are being far to logical.
In the end we are just recognising some initiatives as part of the
work of this group. This is largely a political exercise rather
than a technical one. Strictly, you could wait with any of these
initiatives until you had a complete standard, and then put
it forward in a motion to be accepted as a standard.
In particular, I imagine that Adam is looking for specific
recognition from this group, since the failure of a previous
motion on SUMO to be passed.
There is no harm in being both specific about what you do know,
but open to what you do not. I think it is good to be specific
where you can. I hope that the EPISTLE stuff I am involved in
will get brought in as "other resources".
The important thing about both motions is that they are about
co-existance and working together. Any duplication is mostly
harmless.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pierre Grenon [mailto:pierre.grenon@ifomis.uni-leipzig.de]
> Sent: 23 May 2003 11:40
> To: jim.s3@juno.com
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: SUO: Latest Draft Ballot Questions
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I haven't followed much of the discussions lately. I don't
> know if this has
> been debated. I don't know if this is a concern but I would
> like to receive
> clarification concerning the apparent contradiction (in terms
> of methodology
> for this group) peering from the conjunction of these two ballots:
> -Adams' motion invite work on SUMO.
> -John's motion invite work on IFF, SUMO, OpenCyc.
> The first suggest that this group may engage into the task of
> developping a
> standard from one source. The second that this group may
> engage into the task
> of developing a standard from a multiplicity of sources.
>
> Questions:
> -If both motions were successful, how does Adams' motion
> relate to John's?
> (It seems to me that Adams' is either redundant or parasitic.
> I'm not sure if
> this is true though.)
> -Furthermore, John's motion in point 2 reads 'OpenCyc, SUMO,
> and/or other
> resources'. What does that mean exactly? Given that 'other
> resources' is
> uninformative, I don't see the point of being so precise with
> this motion and
> mention OpenCyc and SUMO. It proposes a methodology for this
> group, basically:
> whichever starting document we have, we will handle them altogether.
>
> Are we going to vote on these other resources? Will other
> resource bringer have
> to make a motion for their proposed material (like Adams'
> motion)? If not, why
> is Adams' motion needed here? Why would we engage in double
> work here (on a
> document alone and on a document as a module or whichever way it is
> integrated)?
>
> So, maybe just a procedural point afterall. It seems to me
> that we should
> proceed by electing independently new starter documents and
> we should vote on
> the modular/integration methodology independently of what
> these starter are. In
> other words, the second motion should leave open the nature
> of the starter
> considered and should just describe them as those starter
> documents which have
> been accepted by the group. This suggests that there should
> be a vote on SUMO
> and (a motion and) a vote on OpenCyc independently.
>
> Best,
> Pierre
>
> >
> > SUO Working Group,
> >
> > 1. This is not yet the actual ballot, so please don't vote yet.
> >
> > 2. Below are the latest versions of the motions by Adam
> Pease and John
> > Sowa.
> >
> > 3. If you have additional suggested changes that will
> impact your vote,
> > please submit them to the list or to Adam or John.
> >
> > 4. The two questions will be included in the same email ballot, but
> > you'll vote on each independently.
> >
> > 5. As announced earlier today, the voting rules are changed
> as follows.
> > ABSTRAINs are factored in. A motion will carry if
> YES-votes > (No-votes
> > + ABSTAINS).
> >
> > 6. The ballots will be posted to this list and also mailed
> directly to
> > all voting members.
> >
> > 7. Since this is the start of a holiday weekend in the US,
> it is assume
> > many voting members will not see this message until 27 or
> 28 May. If no
> > further significant changes are suggested by 28 May, this
> ballot will be
> > emailed out on 29 May. It will be open for 14 days.
> >
> > Jim Schoening
> >
> > ------------------------------------------
> >
> > 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 1.52
> > [April 25, 2003] posted at:
> >
> <http://ontology.teknowledge.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~
> /SUO/Merge.
> > txt?rev=1.49&content-type=text/plain> (containing the ontology) and
> > http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/FormalSUOdraft.rtf>
> > (containing the text of the formal standards proposal) with
> the intent of
> > developing it into a final SUO document. There is further
> intent to
> > collaborate with the SUO group working on a joint library of modules
> > project.
> >
> > Background: Information which is not part of the motion or proposed
> > starter document, but which may be helpful in appreciating
> its value, is
> > as follows. The SUMO was first released on Dec 9, 2000.
> The first and
> > all subsequent revisions have been public releases. SUMO
> is being used
> > by (a small number) of companies and research institutions
> around the
> > world. It has been subject to formal verification by an automated
> > theorem prover. It has been divided into 11 modules to
> simplify reuse.
> > SUMO is small enough to be easily learned (approximately
> 1000 terms, 4000
> > axioms, 750 rules) but large enough to cover, at a high
> level, any domain
> > of interest. It is well-axiomatized, including many rules,
> not just a
> > type structure. The language it is written in is defined at
> > <http://suo.ieee.org/suo-kif.html>. SUMO has been written
> independently
> > of any particular theorem prover and has been used in
> several different
> > systems including LOOM and SNARK. SUMO has also been used in the
> > creation of a number of other freely available products, as
> listed below
> >
> > - WordNet Mappings: We've now mapped, by hand, all of the
> > approximately 100,000 WordNet synsets to SUMO concepts. In
> addition to
> > the nouns, we've mapped the verbs, adjectives, and adverbs.
> > <http://ontology.teknowledge.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/SUO/>
> >
> > - SUMO-Compliant Domain Ontologies. These include ontologies for
> > weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, Quality of
> Service ontology,
> > covering computer systems and networks, Ecommerce Services ontology,
> > Ontology of biological viruses, Financial ontology,
> Ontology of terrain
> > features, an ontology of Government, and a Periodic table of the
> > elements.
> > <http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/index.html#download>
> >
> > - LOOM Translator for SUMO
> >
<http://einstein.teknowledge.com:8080/Sumo2Loom/Sumo2Loom_register.jsp?fi
> leType=.tar&fileName=sumo2loom_b7.tar>
>
> - DAML translation of SUMO
> <http://reliant.teknowledge.com/DAML/SUMO.daml>
>
> - XML translation of SUMO
> <http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/Merge-XML.txt> and KIF to
> XML translator <http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/KIF2XML.txt>
>
> - open source browser download for SUMO
> <http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/>
>
> - on-line SUMO browser
> <http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&skb=SUMO>
>
> All of these items are freely available through our Ontology home page:
> <http://ontology.teknowledge.com> or directly at the links above.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Ballot Question #2 (Latest Draft from John Sowa):
>
> "Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology
> Working Group commence work on a project to develop
> a standard based on three starting candidates,
> IFF, OpenCyc, and SUMO, and continuing as follows:
>
> (1) The development process shall include a
> collaboration of members of all three groups
> and other SUO participants to determine how each
> of the three starting candidates can complement
> and support the contributions of the others.
>
> (2) The results shall include a library of modules
> derived from OpenCyc, SUMO, and/or other sources.
> Each module shall consist of closely related
> axioms and definitions for some aspect of a
> standard upper ontology.
>
> (3) The standard shall include the specification
> of a methodology for testing the modules for
> consistency, relating them to one another in
> a generalization/specialization hierarchy,
> and combining two or more modules to derive a
> new module that is larger and more specialized
> than the modules from which it was derived."
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
>
I