All, (01)
I agree with Steve Ray's statement in the draft communique, (02)
"We all agree the use of some formally defined common upper ontology is
essential for semantic interoperability." (03)
I support exploring this new approach, but let's not dismiss other possible
approaches, such as: (04)
1. Major Leader Approach:
a. A large player selects one CUO (after seeking input and consensus
within an open forum)
b. Its business partners use it and it spreads gobally (05)
2. Consortium Leader Approach: (06)
a. A consortium of key players develop or select a CUO.
b. It spreads globally (07)
3. Market Momentum Approach
a. Many players use different CUOs and the market eventually moves
toward one of them. (08)
4. Consensus Approach
Open forum seeks to develop or select a CUO. (09)
My assessment of each: (010)
All approaches need more commercial success of basic system ontologies. (011)
#4 IEEE SUO WG (which I chaired) tried this but achieved little consensus, due
in part to lack of utilization of the candidate upper ontologies, lack of
pragmatic vendor participation, lack of market momentum toward any one
candidate, and maybe just because there is no one correct upper ontology. (012)
#3 I don't see this happening any time soon. Stand-alone ontologies don't need
and aren't using upper ontologies. (013)
#2. This could work, but only if the reach agreement and then use the CUO. (014)
#1. This could work, but again, only if the major player successfully uses the
CUO. (015)
And I am anxious to learn more about the approach of this summit. (016)
Jim Schoening (017)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit (018)
|