Re: [EXT] Re: Upper ontologies

This is the way I see it too, if there would be effort for the common 
UO. Take the best parts of the existing UOs and harmonize them.

One would think it would also save some work in future for anyone making 
domain ontologies. Just choose the best point of view from “Standard 
Upper Ontology” and start building on it (if there were more than one 
point of view available in "SUO").

On 17/01/2021 3.46, John wrote:
>
> I think the issue of upper ontologies could be relatively 
> straightforward. Some esteemed organization (W3C?) should initiate an 
> upper ontology working group that would become a major effort. By 
> major effort I don’t mean going to the moon or Mars, but something 
> very major indeed. It would probably require funding from multiple 
> governments to reach the necessary scale of effort. It would select an 
> eminent group of experts as the core working group members who would 
> have the final say in defining the “standard upper ontology”. Inputs 
> would be requested from a very wide source of developers to be 
> considered by the working group. Th e goal of the working group would 
> be to identify, as best as possible, what is true and meaningful in 
> terms of relationships and what is not. A good starting point would be 
> measurements and geographic classes and properties. There is a lot of 
> good work already in these areas that could be leveraged. The next job 
> would be to identify a constrained list of the top-level real world 
> things that most domain specific ontology would need to reference. The 
> ultimate release of the “Standard Upper Ontology” would serve the 
> widest categories of ontology developers and they would all be 
> strongly encouraged to use the standard in order to achieve the 
> maximum interoperability. Those ontology developers who simply cannot 
> live with the standard could go there own way, but realizing they have 
> given up the opportunity to seamlessly interoperate with the majority 
> of the Semantic Web community.
>
> John Flynn
>
> Semanticsimulations.com
>
>