RE: SUO: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
Dear John,
Indeed, and of course the development of the OED has continued since
1928. So we need to think in terms of an improvement process, rather
than a once off creation.
For those unfamiliar with such things, this is the field of Quality
Management. A discipline we should all practice. This is the approach
and discipline I am drawing on.
Just as an example, the definition of quality in quality management
terms is "fit for purpose". Hence the need for a purpose, so you can
judge whether something is fit for it. If something is not "fit" there
will be "defects". These can be described in issues. Resolving the
issues leads to improvement in the deliverable, and when there
are no major defects remaining we have something "fit for purpose".
Just in case anyone thinks I am plucking things out of midair.
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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> Sent: 13 November 2003 05:10
> To: Jon Awbrey
> Cc: SUO
> Subject: Re: SUO: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
>
>
>
> I agree with Jon on the following two points:
>
> JA> We already have lots of procedures and
> > routines for voting on starter documents.
> > I suggest that we not haggle over those
> > sorts of issues anymore, indeed, I have
> > come to revise my own opinion about what
> > qualifies as a starter document to what
> > already seems to be the de facto norm,
> > that just about any working effort or
> > historically established project is
> > worth discussing in this forum.
>
> I believe that any serious work on any subject
> related to ontology should be seriously considered
> as a potential contribution to the SUO effort.
>
> JA> What does this particular ontology project want to be? How does
> > it want to define itself, its aims, its own criteria for success,
> > and how does that project for being relate to the other projects?
>
> Those are questions that have not been adequately answered,
> and the directions taken by some (or perhaps all) of the current
> starter candidates do not cover the full range of what should
> be done.
>
> I would recommend the following book about the development of
> the Oxford English Dictionary as something to consider:
>
> Simon Winchester, _The Meaning of Everything_,
> Oxford University Press, 2003.
>
> This is a fascinating account of the development of the OED
> from its proposal in 1869 to its completion in 1928 -- a period
> of 59 years. The time from the first publication of the first
> fascicle in 1882 to the final fascicle in 1928 was 46 years.
>
> That time period should be compared to the 19 years for the
> development of Cyc, which is very far from satisfying anybody
> who is looking for an ontology that could be considered worthy
> of being a "standard".
>
> I do not see any reason for assuming that the deveopment of a
> good SUO would take much less time than the development of the OED.
>
> John Sowa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>