Re: Developing a standard for an ontology registry/repository
On Saturday, January 24, 2009 6:06 AM, John wrote:
"...but unlike ontolog forum, the IEEE is an officially designated standards
body. That is an important advantage."
"Therefore, we could use the SUO mailing list as a basis for developing an
IEEE standard for a registry/repository."
I hold with John. Besides, the listing showed its capacity of being able to
reach the high aims of standard ontology.
The ontolog forum looks good for debates and discussions of ideas, but not
for their organization, concording and realization.
Though, the calling roll shows a platoon, two many absentees, which need to
be called to active duty. The ontolog listing is boasting of about 600
subscribers, a whole battalion of minds capable of independent operations.
If i am wrong, James, the WG chair, easily can correct me here.
But we are made by Mother-Nature to learn things only by making things; via
trial and error, achieving the most viable theories about the world. As it
is said in Russia: "for the one beaten the two unbeaten".
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@BESTWEB.NET>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 6:06 AM
Subject: Developing a standard for an ontology registry/repository
It's true that most of the debates have moved to ontolog forum,
but unlike ontolog forum, the IEEE is an officially designated
standards body. That is an important advantage.
The original goal of the SUO group was to develop a content
standard for an upper ontology. But the difficulty of reaching
any kind of consensus about content caused people to get
However, there does seem to be some indication that a consensus
about an ontology registry/repository might be more realistic.
Therefore, we could use the SUO mailing list as a basis for
developing an IEEE standard for a registry/repository.