Re: SUO: XMP
>
> It is necessary that the IEEE SUO be
> an *example* of an upper level which can be adapted, extended, or partly disabled.
>
> The current Merged Ontology is not an example.
Two instances of such an exammple-standard (meta-standard?) follow.
First instance:
The Common Criteria (ISO IS 15408)
(which has replaced the "Orange Book") for
security evaluation of computers.
http://csrc.nist.gov/cc/index.html
The Common Criteria is a huge set of components.
These components are "on the shelf" awaiting assemblage
into a Protection Profile.
So the Common Criteria is a standard but also in a sense
an example.
The Common Criteria is not useful as a standard directly --
it is a constructor for useful standards (protection profiles).
There are (an increasing number of)
vetted, accepted protection profiles.
There is a pretty elaborate process for determining
suitable/legitimate combinations of components from the "shelf"
(the Common Criteria).
The analogy would be:
IEEE SUO upper level <-> All "Components" in the "Criteria"
Adapted SUO instance/
example/
reference object <-> a Protection Profile
Second instance:
Standard Upper Ontology Knowledge Interchange Format
(http://suo.ieee.org/suo-kif.html)
A "conformance profile" is a selection of alternatives from
each conformance dimension (such as Term Complexity and Quantification).
It is an Interchange Format.
So this Knowledge Interchange Format is (would be)
a standard but also, in a sense, an example or meta-standard.
There would be (an increasing but limited number of)
widely-used "conformance profile"s.
There is a process for determining
suitable/legitimate combinations of language (Interchange Format) elements
(involving "conformance dimensions").
The analogy would be:
IEEE SUO upper level <-> Standard Upper Ontology Knowledge Interchange Format
(http://suo.ieee.org/suo-kif.html)
Adapted SUO instance/
example/
reference object <-> a "conformance profile"