Re: Developing a standard for an ontology registry/repository
I seem to have conveyed the wrong message. I agree with your statements
except for the precise meaning of 'requirements.' I sense that you use the
term to mean more like 'post conditions for satisfaction' whereas most
people (and majority of PM's) use the term to mean the functions and
features of an envisioned system regardless of the symptoms of the
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Jack Ring" <email@example.com>
Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <standard-upper-ontology@IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: Developing a standard for an ontology registry/repository
To a certain extent, that's true:
> The project management point of view is useful for small,
> relatively static situations but the holistic system point
> of view is essential for situations high in extent, variety
> and ambiguity.
> Aren't we faced with the latter?
But various people involved with these ontology projects have
been debating, analyzing, building, examining, and studying
ontologies, applications of ontologies, and requirements for
sharing and reusing them for over 20 years.
The SUO project and mailing list was started in 2000, and
there seems to be a consensus that a registry/repository
system would be a useful product. We have some vague
proposals along those lines, and the time seems ripe for
developing them further.