On Apr 13, 2009, at 5:07 PM, Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
Patrick Cassidy wrote:
FYI: Result of 'MCO' study on a standard upper ontology:
Proposal not adopted.
The issue is still important, and I would suggest we continue this thread
for a while.
Doc No: 2N1854
Doc Type: Summary of voting/Table of Replies
Title: Summary of Voting on 32N1833 Request for SC32/WG2 study period
on standardized concept systems and semantic descriptions for merged core
ontology (MCO) as proposed in 32N1807 Due Date: -
Source: SC32 Secretariat
Status: proposed SC32 resolution is not adopted due to insufficient
number of P-members voting (JTC1 Directives, 9.1.10)
Interestingly, the proposal was defeated by lack of quorum -- too few
national bodies sent in their ballots. That suggests that there is
little interest in such a standard. Another tempest in a teapot.
Now this has died the death, I can with a clear conscience reveal that the initiative for this ISO merging of merged upper ontologies came from the US Army, in the person of Jim Schoening, who has been active in promoting "Upper" ontologies for some time now (including the granddaddy of them, SUMO).
The motivation, among US Government agencies, for seeking ISO certification, is not to establish a New World Order that all must obey, or indeed to impose upon anyone else in any way at all. It is simply that there is a broad Government mandate to use ISO standards where possible, so that anything that has achieved ISO standardization status is easier to get funded, easier to get supported and easier to "sell" to other agencies. ISO standardization, amazingly enough, is a potent aid towards achieving interoperability within the US government, as well as outside it.
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile