Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

SUO: RE: RE: Proposed Conclusions and Actions from Vote




Dear James,

> 
> Chris,
> 
> 	You asked:
> 
> >You say:
> >"     Documents under development by this working group:
> >1. Merged Ontology <link address>"
> 
> >I presume that this means we are going to have a number of documents
> >(describing ontologies) under development. Is this right?
> 
> >If so could you clarify how we should go about getting other 
> documents into
> >this category (or maybe another category - being considered 
> for input).
> 
> This category would be for documents this group is officially 
> working on,
> which means they should be within the Scope of this group.  
> In our current
> early stage, it would fine to be working on more than one 
> document, but
> eventually we'll need to either downselect of merge the 
> various documents. 

MW: Why? It seems to me at least as reasonable that we might end up
developing a number of different, but related documents. This is certainly
the approach we have taken in ISO TC184/SC4. For example ISO 10303 STEP, has
some 100 or so parts.
>   
> >Also if so, could I propose that we include the EPISTLE work 
> that Matthew
> >has done. This has the advantage of having been tried and 
> tested for a
> while
> >(though, as I'm sure Matthew himself will admit, it is far 
> from perfect).
> It
> >seems to me that it can only add to the SUO's credibility if 
> it includes
> >something that has been established in commercial use.
> 
> >I expect that when Nicola Guarino's SUO paper is ready, he 
> will want to
> >submit it for inclusion. And we would want to include it.
> 
> 	I would say the key ingredients for submission are:
> 
> 	a. Copyright release to authorize this IEEE WG to change and
> distribute document.

MW: I know the intent is that the work of EPISTLE is freely available to be
used, provided the source is recognised, neither is adaptation a problem or
change (feedback would be appreciated). On the other hand I cannot find any
public statement to this effect. It is worth noting that in EXPRESS form the
EPISTLE Core Model is about to be issued as an ISO 15926-2 DIS (Draft
International Standard). 

Could you resend me a copy of the standard release form please? I will take
it up with the EPISTLE Management Committee.
> 
> 	b. Within Scope of WG

MW: smack in the middle.
> 
> 	c. Intent to develop document into final SUO standard, 
> or to merge
> it with other documents being worked on or anticipated.

MW: Yes. I would anticipate a separate document initially. I would expect a
mapping between this 4D and the current 3D work, rather than a merger, but
that can emerge over time.
> 
> 	d. Belief that enough participation can be generated to 
> complete the
> effort, to include a volunteer Technical Editor.  

MW: I would welcome someone volunteering for this with greater KIF skills
than I have. In the absence of that, I will volunteer.

> 
> 	The group would need to approve the official commencing 
> of work on
> any given document, though it can certainly take place via 
> the list on an
> unofficial basis.

MW: I would welcome a "vote of encouragement" to start this work. In ISO we
have an approach of having Preliminary Work Items, and New Work Items.  I
would map a proposal to develop a particular document onto a  priliminary
Work Item Proposal - what is suggested here. A later vote would be
appropriate to decide whether some results of this world should be developed
as a standard.

MW: I think now would be a good time to start developing this document.
> 
> Jim Schoening
> 
> 
> 	
> 
Regards  
      Matthew
============================================
Matthew West
Operations & Asset Management
Shell Services International
H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929 
Mobile: +44 7796 336538
E-mail: Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com
http://www.shellservices.com/
============================================