Re: SUO: on SUO and other projects
Stephano,
I understand and agree with your concerns. The SUO WG should not
get directly involved in projects of its members. But the recent request
is really only a customer request for information.
BIKE wants to use one or more of the SUO starter documents. (This
is good. We need this.)
BIKE is simply asking the members of this groups for their varied
opinions on the attibutes of each starter document. This is purely
voluntary.
BIKE would prefer this input to be generic (for any customer)
rather than specific to BIKE.
Once BIKE starts using one or more of the documents, they will
provide inputs that will help improve the documents. This would not be
SUO getting involved in BIKE, but rather BIKE getting involved in SUO.
As Chair, I would help any potential customer evaluate our work.
Any Chair would. If other customers surface, I help them the same.
Jim Schoening
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 16:16:00 +0100 Stefano Borgo <borgo@loa-cnr.it>
writes:
>
> Folks,
> Jim's call to participate in the BIKE project (message reported
> below) has raised some criticism. I'm trying to understand if this
> is
> just a communication problem or something that goes deeper. I
> suggest
> we discuss this issue since it is likely we will face it again in
> the
> future.
>
> The main reason, for what I can see, is that we have no policy about
>
> getting involved in other projects. To avoid possible confusions,
> let
> me state clearly that such a policy would apply to the SUO WG (and
> related subgroups) and not to single members.
>
> Here are a few questions I'd like the list to consider:
> 1) Should the SUO WG have a policy regarding involvement (and to
> which degree) into other projects?
> 2) Is it advisable (if possible at all) for the SUO WG to be
> officially part of other projects?
> 2) Beside the fact that each of us can work on any project she
> likes,
> should the SUO WG endorse projects or applications?
> 3) What are the requisites a project should satisfy in order to be
> considered by the SUO WG?
> 4) Beside the fact that each of us can ask if there are people
> interested in a project she likes, can the chair (as such) ask the
> SUO to get involved in a project without a preliminary discussion on
>
> the project itself?
>
> Since the SUO is an open project, it seems natural to me to set some
>
> minimal restrictions before an *official* call for volunteers is
> sent
> to the SUO list. (By official I mean a call made by the chair as
> such.)
>
> In my view, we should require that a proposed project satisfies at
> least the followings
> - the project must be totally open
> - the project must be of clear general interest
> - the project must have a clear relevance for the SUO initiative
>
> These requirements (or something like these) guarantee that the SUO
>
> stays out of project/applications that do not complain with the
> spirit of the group itself. For example, a project on legal or
> medical issues would likely satisfy these minimal restrictions. A
> partially secret project paid by the China or US or Iran Army (or
> any
> other one-sided organization) probably would not.
>
> From this perspective, I consider Jim's message as an accident that
>
> might help SUO to understand how to relate with outside projects.
>
> Finally, Jim, let me give you a piece of (friendly) advice.
> The chair (any chair) of a group based on voluntary work should be
> careful in proposing a project when there is a strong connection (in
>
> this case identity) between his employer and the organization that
> founds the proposed project. Any suspect of a conflict of interests
>
> weakens the SUO activity and might jeopardize it in the long run.
> If this is the reason (or part of it) for the criticisms to your
> message, I think they are justified.
> I hope you will clarify your position in this regard.
>
> cheers
> Stefano
>
>
> ===============================================
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org, SUO-STATUS@ieee.org
> Subject: SUO-STAT Program wants to work with SUO documents
> From: jim.s3@juno.com
> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:03:50 -0500
> Sender: owner-suo-status@majordomo.ieee.org
>
>
> SUO WG,
>
> I have stated many times we need more real users to use
> our
> starter documents and provide feedback and improvements. We need
> them
> to develop domain and system ontologies, to develop actual systems
> and
> tools. We need them to propose new concepts and axioms, plus
> identify
> flaws that really matter to their systems. This will all provide
> valuable feedback to improve these documents.
>
> We now have at least one program to do this. The Battle
> Information & Knowledge Exchange (BIKE) Program is a 4-year R&D
> program
> at my employer (US Army) that needs a common upper ontology and
> wants
> to start working with one or more or our starter documents. Mr.
> Kenneth
> Beam is the manager of the program and Ms. Lisa Tran will be
> working the
> ontology aspect of it. Ken is out on paternity leave, but Lisa has
> joined the SUO list and will introduce herself shortly.
>
> BIKE now needs expert input on the attributes of each of
> our
> documents, from all perspectives. Perhaps other potential users
> will
> also value this analysis.
>
> Suggested approach:
>
> a. Develop an evaluation form with specific questions, but
> also
> allow free-form input. Below is a strawman list of questions.
> Please
> send any edits/additions/deletions, then let's use our consensus
> process
> to finalize the list.
>
> b. Keep the questions generic to any user, since BIKE wants
> a
> potentially broadly acceptable upper ontology anyway.
>
> c. Anyone may provide input, even if not a member of SUO
> or
> subscribed to this list. Candidate ontologies should not be
> limited to
> just SUO starter documents.
>
> d. To keep the inputs manageable and easy to review, permit
> only
> one evaluation form per person per ontology; however, allow
> submission
> of updated forms. Allow rebuttals.
>
> e. Post all evaluation forms and rebuttals to the SUO web
> site in
> an orderly fashion. Since this will require daily web work, Oanh
> Trinh
> of the BIKE program is willing to help.
>
> To get started, please send edits to the below list of evaluation
> questions.
>
>
> Jim Schoening
> Chair, IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working Group
> jim.s3@juno.com
>
> ===============================
> Strawman Evaluation Questions for Common Upper Ontologies
>
> 1. Maturity: (How ready is it to use now? What capabilities have
> already
> been demonstrated? Time and resources needed to start using?
> Potential
> for improvement.)
>
> 2. Robustness: (Heavy weight vs. light weight ontology features?
> Potential for improving robustness? How well will it handle known
> requirements, such as those listed in SUO Scope and Purpose.)
>
> 3. Potential for broad acceptance: (How well will it support
> maximum
> number of domains?)
>
> 4. Language Flexibility: (What ontology language is it in? How
> stable is
> language?If desired, could it be written in a different ontology
> language?)
>
> 5. Ownership/Cost/Changes: (Who owns it? Any proprietary
> restrictions on
> use? Any charges for utilization? How will it get changed and who
> controls the changes? Is it being developed by a Standards
> Developing
> Organization?
>
> 6. Domain Friendly (How easy to develop domain ontologies based on
> upper
> ontology?)
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
>
> --
>
> ================================
> Stefano Borgo
> Laboratory for Applied Ontology, ISTC-CNR
> via Solteri 38
> 38100 Trento - ITALY
>
> phone: +39 0461 436349
> mobile: +39 3290 275830
> fax: +39 0461 435344
> email: borgo at loa-cnr.it
> http://www.loa-cnr.it/
> ================================
>
>
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!