Re: SUO: Latest Draft Ballot Questions
Pat, Matthew, Frank, Jim, et al.,
I think that we should leave the detailed wordsmithing
to the standard-writing process. If it is OK with you,
I would be just as happy to go with last week's version.
But if you would prefer, I'll make one more pass at
another version (see below).
1. To make it clear, I put the word "specification"
ahead of "registration".
2. To avoid making a commitment to IS 11179-3, I said
"such as" instead of "according to".
3. I shortened and simplified some of the other wording.
If this doesn't make everybody happy, I suggest that
Jim should go with the earlier version for the ballot.
John Sowa
______________________________________________________________
Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working Group
(SUO) commence work on a project to develop a standard for
ontology specification and registration, according to the
following guidelines:
1. The standard shall be based on the contributions of three
SUO candidate projects: IFF, OpenCyc, and SUMO.
2. The standard shall specify an ontology registry, such as
the metadata registries specified by ISO/IEC IS 11179-3,
but with extensions that are required to define ontologies
and to relate them to one another.
3. The ontology registry shall be organized as a collection
of modules, related in a generalization/specialization
hierarchy.
4. Each module shall consist of a theory together with
documentation and other metadata. The theory shall consist
of axioms and definitions stated in a logic-based language,
such as those in the Common Logic (CL) framework.
5. The standard shall include the specification of a methodology
for testing the theory part of any module for consistency,
relating theories to one another in the generalization/
specialization hierarchy, and combining two or more theories
to derive a new theory that is larger and more specialized
than the theories from which it was derived.