Re: SUO: Missing ingredient
jim.s3@juno.com wrote:
[...]
> 3. As the number of users grows, the document moves closer to a
> market-accepted de facto standard. IEEE approval will not be enough.
> Some level of market adoption must be achieved.
>
> So, how do get organizations to attempt to reuse any of our
> documents? Or, if they are doing so, how do we get them to submit their
> suggested changes?
>
> Any thoughts?
Jim,
My reply alludes to an ongoing discussion I've had with John Sowa
and others not about the logic, semantics or epistemology of the SUO
or other ontological systems, but about technical adoption. Since
that seems to be one of the big issues you mention, I'll reiterate
what I've said to John, and something Peter Becker, Finnegan Southey
and others have echoed, namely, that what we need as implementors
is the rubber-meets-the-road documents. TO be able to see how the
mathematical or logical models relate directly to the real world.
The mathematical models are all necessary and part of what I would
expect people like John, Pat, and others to create (they're the
experts), but it doesn't suit the purposes of implementors. It's one
of the reasons why I asked Jon to help me understand LBase. Hand
waving won't do, nor will demanding that implementors learn to
be proficient in logic. It's a tragedy that we all don't get that
education, but there's not point in telling a software engineer to
do so. If the mountain won't move to Mohammed...
What has been lacking (IMO, as an implementor, markup expert, and
relatively new researcher to this field) is that rubber-meets-the-
road model, and also the pedagogical documentation that would allow
some small proportion of the 719,515 registered sourceforge users to
*understand* what the SUO is and does, why it's important, etc. I
know that Pat has gone to some effort in writing up LBase, and I
am thankful for that. But more is needed.
I'm hoping that I can be somewhat of a bridge between communities,
and I'm also hoping I'm not alone. Not everyone can drop their
career and start a Ph.D. program. One of the first things I did
back in 2000, before we'd even finished the XML Topic Map spec, was
to attempt to translate Cyc into XTM. I had no qualifications, and
very little understanding at the time of what I was doing -- it was
obviously a learning experience. What is needed are the kinds of
documents that would have enabled me at that time to understand
what the heck all this stuff is about, and I found very little
that would help me. I've spent the last two years studying in the
hope that I'll gain enough understanding to be one of those bridges.
What would be helpful would be to look at the kinds of models
and documentation, software APIs, etc. employed within the
organizations you're trying to target, and endeavour to have
that material written. If you're trying to hit the web market,
those 719,515, you'd need UML models, Java APIs, and probably some
XML schemas. I realize this kind of thing is probably beyond the
scope of the SUO project -- my point is that there are two islands,
and we all need some bridge building, in both directions.
Long enough message, time for me to hit the hay. (almost 5am here)
Murray
......................................................................
Murray Altheim http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK .
Monkeys use thoughts to control robotic arm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/10/13/MN2018.DTL
Bush uses media expertly to push apocalyptic view
http://truthout.org/docs_03/091403J.shtml