SUO: Re: Lifecycle Integration Schema
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
LIS. Discussion Note 24
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
JA = Jon Awbrey
MW = Matthew West
JA: As I understood the spirit of Sowa's Umbrella Motion that passed
on the last electoral cycle, it was meant to facilitate our giving
due consideration to any new ontology proposals of a serious nature,
without all the energy-&-motion-&-time-dissipating fuss of votes ...
MW: You may recall that my initial informal entry into the fray
was mostly asking how to proceed. But my recollection was
John's motion ended up only talking about SUMO and OpenCYC,
and not being clearly open ended.
Always a good idea to go back and see what we signed,
adding my own emphases at a couple of salient points:
| 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): ( )
|
| --------End Ballot Question #2---------------------------------
There are two appearances of "SUCH AS" in the above ballot question.
I remember the amount of discussion that went into placing each one
of these qualifiers in the motion, and each time it was said by the
proposer, and heartily approved all around, that the overall intent
was to make the proposal inclusive of new material that possessed
a generally recognized level of respectability and seriousness,
to make the motion robust with regard to future developments.
That was the spirit of the grand protestations.
In hindsight, once again, we probably should've
spent another couple of weeks getting it all in
writing -- but then, if you can't take people at
all of their words and assurances, what the devil
good is it going on with this process, anyway?
Have to break here -- will get to the rest later.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o