|
Dear
Colleagues,
I
think we are forgeting whose meeting this is. As I understand it the purpose of
the meeting (as defined by the organizers) is to look at how the various upper
ontologies can be related to each other, the possibility of "a common
subset" and to see if there is agreement to do some work
together on this (subject to funding), with the announcement of the results of
any agreement.
What
it now looks to me is happening is that there is an attempt to hijack this to a
promotion of upper ontology, and CYC, SUMO and DOLCE in particular. Well I will
object to that at least and as a minimum if we head in that direction expect
equal air time for ISO 15926. But I am equally uncomfortable with people making
these kinds of suggestions at the last minute when there has been at least a
couple of months when this could have been said.
Regards
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and
Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Shell
Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44
7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
I concur with Bill's position and Adam's earlier
statement. I was surprised
to see the vendor parade on
the Wed. agenda, but since I hadn't helped in an
integral way with this
meeting, all along, I didn't feel I should speak up.
Regarding Adan's
statement, Peter, when you said you didn't understand
why the 3 of us
UO-builders might want/need to talk "to each other", it
seemed to me that
you might be missing Adam's point (well, if it's the same
point I would have made): it isn't that the 3 of
us need to talk with
each other, nor with the public or the media, so much
as with the rest
of you, this group. I.e., we've got decades of
actual experiences doing this
that we can share with you. Many of you
(academics and vendors alike)
are new to this field, and we can tell you
some of the lessons we learned
the hard way, what surprised us (e.g., which
"details" end up being critical
and which "crucial issues" end up not being
critical after all), what these
existing ontologies ARE (as resources for
the community) in at least
more than several seconds' detail,
etc.
Is that what you were getting at, Adam?
--Doug
John F. Sowa wrote:
I support Bill
Andersen's position.
John Sowa
_______________________________________________
An open letter
to the UOS organizers and all key participants. Please read the whole
thing.
.bill
On Mar 9, 2006, at 19:24 ,
Adam Pease wrote:
> Peter,
> That's good to
hear. My suggestion, with all respect to Mills, would be to have Doug,
Nicola and myself each present our views for 1/2 hour each from 9am to
10:30am. That's still quite limited, but might give the group at least
some of the groundwork needed to make progress on an upper ontology summit.
Let me amplify Adam's comments:
For this proceeding to be
taken seriously, there needs to be a clear focus, clear goals, and ample
time given to discuss some very difficult topics. All three are
lacking from the proposed agenda. I completely agree with Adam on his
earlier points about lack of proper focus. Now, let me move on to
another topic. Upon reading Adam's post I decided to look at the
agenda myself:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit/UosApplicationDialogMeeting_2006_03_15
I discovered that Wednesday morning's agenda is a platform for
commercial vendors of "ontology" tools to talk about and demonstrate their
products and/or positions. This is a completely inappropriate activity
to be mixed in with a scientific discussion of upper ontology and an attempt
at reconciliation of UOs as engineering efforts. I had absolutely no
idea such an activity was planned. Had I known I would have
protested. Who is the audience for this? Why where these
particular parties selected? Who selected them? Is the press
invited? What statements have been prepared to give to the press
regarding these commercial interests?
We all deserve answers to
these questions.
I have given freely of my valuable time to help
shape the wording and agenda for the summit. I work very hard to keep
my life as an academic researcher in this area separate from my interest in
my company. Now I find out that my efforts and name and
reputation and even that of my company are being used in part to foster the
commercial interests of those in competition with us? This is an
absolutely unheard of outrage!!!!!
I can't speak for Adam or for
Doug Lenat, but If you're going to have demos, then why not include demos of
Ontology Works IODE, Cyc, and Sigma – the most mature products in existence
that have REAL upper ontologies in them. Either open it up to anyone
with an actual ULO-based product, or kill the commercial content
altogether. I suggest killing the commercial content so we can stick
to the science and engineering. So...
Can any of you explain
any of this???
If not, then I will formally (and *very* publicly)
withdraw my personal support and that of my company for the UOS
effort. Moreover, I will in the strongest possible terms urge my
commercial, academic, and government colleagues to do the same.
.bill
Bill Andersen (andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Chief Scientist
Ontology Works, Inc. (www.ontologyworks.com)
3600
O'Donnell Street, Suite 600
Baltimore, MD 21224
Office: 410-675-1201
Cell: 443-858-6444
_________________________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________________________
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
|
|