Re: Clarification Request [was: SUO: Discussion Period on Motion by Matthew West ]
I share Pierre's concerns below.
Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pierre Grenon" <pierre.grenon@ifomis.uni-leipzig.de>
To: <jim.s3@juno.com>; <matthew.west@shell.com>
Cc: <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 06:01
Subject: 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
>