Re: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
Mike,
The basic point I was trying to make is that we have
a long way to go from where we are to where we would
like to be. And there are intermediate steps along
the way that can help us get from here to there.
> Indeed, but the standard itself should not be the compilation
> of materials. I worry that this is what the "registry as standard"
> proposal naturally leads to.
I agree that if we stop with just a registry, we won't
have a standard. But a registry is an essential step
toward the development of a good standard:
1. What we have today is a chaos of dozens of unrelated,
incompatible, and competing ontologies.
2. The registry provides an organization that relates
different ontologies to one another and to shared
and sharable components.
3. Without a registry, there is no way out of the
current chaos. Each group will continue to pursue
its own independent direction.
4. With a registry, there is a systematic way of relating
different contributions. It provides the raw material
from which newer, better ontologies can be developed.
5. To use Eric's term "marketplace", a de facto standard
can emerge from those combinations of modules that
prove to be the most useful and generally applicable.
6. Finally, a standards organization such as IEEE or ISO
can bless the de facto standard and adopt it or develop
it into an official standard.
As we agree, a registry, by itself, does not give us a standard
ontology. But it is a step toward a standard. Without it,
a standard ontology is impossible.
John Sowa