Clarification Request [was: SUO: Discussion Period on Motion by Matthew West ]
Dear Matthew and Jim,
Three points - please, understand them as clarification requests.
Best,
Pierre
A.
The more it goes, the less I understand this motion. I would appreciate a
reformulation of the motion. In the current state I don't see how I could even
vote. (I think this point was made by Mike Pool earlier on providing unanimous
consent - to what? was the question.)
It is apparently an offer for a new starter document.
- Is it a self standing starter?
- Is it a part of a putative hacker registry?
On the one hand, the original message seems to suggest that this is proposed
for internal development. In addition, Matthew has declared his desire that the
SUO WG group develop and flesh out this embryonary ontolgy for its own sake.
On the other hand, the motion also suggests integration in the hacker registry.
However, Matthew claimed that he was not (primarily?) interested in comparing
with other starters.
It's not clear to me what is proposed, what is expected and how this fits this
group's goal. In the present state, I can only think of abstaining from voting
(not even voting abstain).
B.
I have reservations or questions concerning this document and this proposal.
i) not a mature proposal for an ontology: the theory may be clear to the author
but it remains a vocabulary illustrated with schemas. In particular, it does
not present an axiomatic specification of the theory. The only formal
considerations are taxonomic and use an idiomatic language which will have to
be delt away in the event of integration and prior to this comparaison with
other elements in the putative registry.
ii) not suitable for research: the key documents both for the theory and the
language are ISO standards or on the verge of becoming so. They are not freely
available but for purchase only. I do not understand the possible copyright
issues which arise.
C.
This also illustrate issues with the constitution of the hacker registry and
the need for working out a policy which goes beyond acclaming a few of the
members of this list's consensus building intentions.
Isn't the envisioned lattice of ontologies worth a thought only if it stands as
a mean for articulating true fundamental variants upper-level ontologies
readily available for breeding?
It seems to me that the current approach consists in gathering every one and
other candidate without regard for previously accepted material and how the
study of accepted starters can generate proper combinations and alternative at
the top of the putative lattice. In that sense, this direction is that of
building an ad hoc registry of legacy material, which is a fine goal if you are
interested in the gazette of the ontological community. I have previously
stated the magical thinking behind the recently accepted orientation: put these
things together, shake and you'll get a marvelouy lattice of infinite theories.
The problem with magical potions is that you need proper ingredients and a
protocol. The methodology followed here seems to be more closely related to
blind bartending and charlatanism.
What is the methodology endorsed by this group for handling such proposals?
--------------------------------------------
All,
Matthew West's motion has been seconded. We will now have a
discussion period (already started) for no less than 2-weeks, but as long
as needed.
Jon questions whether a formal vote is needed. Technically, it
is not, but we would need clear consensus (absent any objections) to make
a group decision without such a vote.
Jim Schoening
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Jim,
I will second, but I had the impression that
John Sowa's earlier motion, that was passed,
made it possible to include new documents
by acclamation or at least by some means
other than a formal vote.
Jon
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
jim.s3@juno.com wrote:
>
> SUO WG Voting Members,
>
> The below message, Matthew posted earlier today, is intended to
> be a motion.
>
> Is there a second? (Just one needed, please)
>
> Jim Schoening
>
>
> --------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <matthew.west@shell.com>
> To: "Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)"
<standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:19:29 +0100
> Subject: SUO: Proposal for Starter Content
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> You will be aware that I have been invovled in developing the
> EPISTLE Core Model, a data model that constitutes a 4 dimensional
> upper ontology, which is being standardised as ISO 15926-2. This
> has now reached the stage of being published for its Final Draft
> International Standard ballot.
>
> I would therefore like to take this opportunity to propose it as
> starter content for the Standard Upper Ontology.
>
> The full document will be available shortly from your local
> (national) standards body or ISO. However, the formal model is
> available on the web in browsable html form at:
>
>
http://www.tc184-sc4.org/wg3ndocs/wg3n1328/lifecycle_integration_schema.h
> tml
>
> It is written in EXPRESS, an ISO standard data modelling language
> that is defined in ISO 10303-11.
>
> I should say that my intent/hope for future development may include
> translation into a Description Logic language (OWL?) or First Order
Logic
> language and the addition of further axioms than those that are part
> of the structure of the data model, together with inclusion within
> the IFF framework together with other upper ontologies with different
> foundations.
>
> What I am not sure of is where we have got to with how we propose
> content to be formally considered part of our work here.
>
> 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
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
--
Pierre Grenon
IFOMIS Uni Leipzig
Haertelstr. 16-18
04107 Leipzig
http://people.ifomis.uni-leipzig.de/pierre.grenon/
pgrenon@ifomis.uni-leipzig.de
phone: 49(0)351971672
fax: 49(0)3519716179