Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

SUO: [Fwd: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions]

 

Comment (for circulation):

I vote YES on #2, NO on #1.

Question #2 appropriately designates three promising reference objects as
illustrations to be considered in a legitimate, tax-exempt standards
activity.  Question #1 inappropriately singles out one of the three
artifacts for privileged status.   In other words, Ballot Question # 2
authorizes work towards a standard, whereas Ballot Question #1 attempts to
secure endorsement for one commercially motivated product in competition
with others that might also conform to the emerging standard.   The
distinction between a standard and a reference object is well established in
standards work generally.  A well-executed reference object may become a de
facto standard, but this is hardly the time to anoint SUMO as the chosen
candidate.   The work done to improve SUMO since it failed to gain majority
support in an earlier vote is acknowledged in Question #2.   The previous
rejection of OpenCyc is also taken into account in Question #2.  It strikes
me as overreaching to jump SUMO ahead of OpenCyc and IFF, as proposed in
Question #1.

Lee

Josiah Lee Auspitz  email: lee@sabre.org
17 Chapel Street
Somerville, MA 02144-1901
phone: 617-628-6228, fax: -9441
resend bounced email to: josiahleeauspitz@yahoo.com

>
> ATTN Voting Members of IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working
> Group:
>
> 1. Please vote on the below two questions. Votes may be in the form of
> YES, NO, or ABSTAIN.  The motion will pass if both (a majority of voting
> members either vote or acknowledge receipt of the ballot) and (YES votes
> are greater than [NO plus ABSTAIN votes]).
>
> 2. If you are unsure whether you are a voting member, see the list of
> voting members at http://suo.ieee.org/voting-members.txt.
>
> 3. If you choose not to vote, please acknowledge receipt of the ballot.
>
> 4. The period for voting will end at midnight EDT on June 13, 2003.  If a
> majority of voting members have not yet voted or acknowledged, the chair
> may extend the period for voting and may remind those who have not
> responded.
>
> 5. Please email your vote to Jon Awbrey (copied above) and me, but not
> the SUO list, unless you specifically want your vote (and any comments)
> shared with everyone.
>
> Jim Schoening
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ballot Question #1:
>
>        "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.
>
> Please insert vote here (YES, NO, or ABSTAIN): (  NO   )

Comment:  SUMO strikes me as essentially a commercial product to be duly
developed and registered under standards covered in Ballot Question #2.
Hence I vote YES on #2,  NO on #1.  The NO vote, which is not a comment on
the quality of the work done,  would also apply to work assisting
commercialization of the Cyc and IFF artifacts


> --------End Ballot Question #1----------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Ballot Question #2:
>
> 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.
>
> Please insert vote here (YES, NO, or ABSTAIN): (YES )
>
> --------End Ballot Question #2---------------------------------
>