[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] file comments -- representation issues: voting que

To: cassidy@xxxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Adam Pease <adampease@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 08:09:56 -0800
Message-id: <>
   The highest level node in SUMO is Entity.  Under Entity there are two 
terms, Physical and Abstract.  They are exhaustive.  Adding a new node 
"Context" at that level is a fundamental change in SUMO, since it means 
that those two terms would no longer be exhaustive.
   Apart from the fact that you are proposing changes, whether you believe 
that is the case or not, I've been able to show how the core components and 
an Invoice can be represented without needing any changes to SUMO or MILO, 
so such drastic measures aren't needed, even if they made sense 
independently of UBL effort, which they don't.    (01)

Adam    (02)

At 01:00 AM 2/23/2004 -0500, Patrick Cassidy wrote:    (03)

>Peter --
>   I'm a bit unclear as to what you mean by your note:
> > Good point, Adam.
> >
> > May I suggest that discussions specific to Upper Ontology be considered
> > as being outside of our scope here. We should, predominantly, be dealing
> > in the "business" domian ontology. Is that ok with both of you, Pat & Adam?
> >
> > Discussions like that should probably be done elsewhere, say, for
> > example, at the IEEE-SUO list.
> >
>    What point of Adam's did you agree with?  Could you put it
>in your own words?
>    The additional content I have been suggesting is in most cases
>*directly* related to the business Ontology, including the concept of
>a "Context", which is used within the UBL specification.  More
>detail will have to be added to "Context" to capture the different
>types of business context that they feel are relevant.
>    I will be quite happy to pursue discussions one-on-one
>with anyone who has any questions, objections, or
>suggestions for change in anything I have suggested.
>However, I will simply ignore any suggestions to junk
>everything and start all over, as Adam has recommended.
>    I plan to suggest additional content as time permits,
>and will be happy to discuss specifics about this content
>in any forum.  I will also make, as I have already, comments
>and suggestions about what others recommend.
>    I have bent over backwards to avoid making any changes
>in the existing SUMO/MILO, focusing on additions, with
>only a few renamings where there was a logical error
>(such as the use of "contract" in different senses)
>or ambiguity was a threat.
>    I have sent another note explaining why I think that
>restricting additions of content from members (except
>for logical inconsistency) is a really really **bad**
>idea, and why addition of content only peripherally
>related to the core business concepts can be helpful.
>Whether or not a suggested business-related concept
>captures the reality of business practice, or is
>consistent with the UBL version, are important issues
>for us.  Discussing whether a peripheral concept happens to
>be essential at this particular time is likely to be a great
>time-waster, with no possible objective resolution.
>    Does anyone have any constructive comments on the
>business concepts I have suggested?   Anyone?
>    Pat
>Patrick Cassidy
>MICRA, Inc.                      || (908) 561-3416
>735 Belvidere Ave.               || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer)
>Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054        || (908) 668-5904 (fax)
>internet:   cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post: 
>mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (04)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (05)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>