Re: onto-std@ksl.stanford.edu
Dear all,
Maybe what can be done is to develop standards that can actually qualify the upper ontologies developed or the algorithms used to develop such ontologies so that they "can be called
a standard".
That way, we may be free from thinking about how we are going to build them and just worry about the access to them.
So, the question would be reduced to "given an upper ontology for a given domain or an algorithm for developing such upper ontology, what is its quality / can this be a standard?" (
i.e. pertaining to its (intra/inter-)consistency and reliability).
Ergun
On 6/24/07, John F. Sowa <sowa@bestweb.net
> wrote:Phil,
I agree that would be a useful thing to do:
> Rather than seek to develop a "standard", perhaps the focus
> should be on developing "common", useful ontology kernels /
> frameworks....
But who is going to pay for it. If it's going to be done by
volunteers, who is going to coordinate the volunteers, and
how do you ensure consistency, reliability, etc.?
As for systems that people have paid money to build, Cyc is
the premier example. But after 23 years of development, it
still does not generate enough money to keep itself in business
without a major influx of research grants.
Over the years of SUO efforts, we went round and round on these
funding issues without getting answers that had money attached.
John