standardization of semantics

• Mail folder: SRKB Mail
• Next message: John H. Gennari: "re: standardization of semantics"
• Previous message: Anthony K. Sarris: "Results of ISO CSMF Mtg. in Southampton, UK"
• Reply: John H. Gennari: "re: standardization of semantics"
• Reply: rmb@santafe.edu: "Re: standardization of semantics"

Date: Mon, 15 Aug 94 15:51:36 PDT
From: "Matthew L. Ginsberg" <ginsberg@t.uoregon.edu>
Message-id: <9408152251.AA05850@t.uoregon.edu>
To: jksharp@sandia.gov, srkb@cs.umbc.edu
Subject: standardization of semantics
Sender: owner-srkb@cs.umbc.edu
Precedence: bulk

Hi John:

I just saw a posting about this that included the remark

  The US is looking to Sowa, Genesereth and Fulton to prepare a unified
  position on CLF based on Conceptual Graphs (CGs), Knowledge
  Interchange Format (KIF) and the STEP Semantic Unification Meta-Model
  (SUMM).

I'm not sure who in the US is "looking to" these guys; my opinion
remains that the Sowa/Genesereth/Fulton gang is leading the effort by
self-proclamation and not by virtue of technical merit.  Sowa
champions CGs, Genesereth KIF and Fulton presumably SUMM.  I know of
*no* fielded AI application that uses any of these methods, although
it is obviously possible some small efforts have escaped my attention.
I know of no significant efforts *at all* that use KIF, with the
exception of a couple of single-scientist research acgtivities.  Why
is there this rush to standardize on things that aren't even in actual
use?

In any event, I can probably make it to the September meeting in
Seattle.  Would you like me to attend?

						Matt Ginsberg