Communication from Larry Reeker -> .
Communication to SICoP
From Pete Haglich,
ISX Corporation
In my experience, yes, there will be benefits accruing from a pragmatic common upper ontology. One trap to avoid is the tendency to try and make the common upper ontology the grand common model for life, the universe, and everything.
I believe that developing such a common upper ontology is outside the charter of the SICOP. It's not clear to me that making recommendations about which common upper ontology to use is outside the charter of the SICOP, especially as they are non-binding. I think that SICOP products (white papers, for example) that explain the benefits of using a common upper ontology are definitely in the scope of the charter of the SICOP. I also believe that it would be beneficial for the SICOP to select a common upper ontology for group use in our own dealings. I don't wish our group to start a civil war over which common upper level ontology to adopt for SICOP use. In the spirit of "good enough" I think we should quickly pick a relatively simple common ontology and take it from there.
Jim, you've had a lot of experience with the SUO group reviewing upper level ontologies. Is there an ontology which meets your "good enough" desideratum that you would recommend the SICOP adopt?
--
Pete Haglich, ISX Corporation
Virginia Beach, VA