A proposal for a new work item (including proposals for amendment or
revision of an existing standard) **within the scope of an existing
technical committee or subcommittee** shall be submitted to the
secretariat of that technical committee or subcommittee with a copy to
the Central Secretariat and, in the case of a sub-committee, a copy to
the secretariat of the parent technical committee. The proposal will be
circulated to the P-members of the technical committee or subcommittee
for voting, and to the O-members for information. The proposer may be a
member body of ISO, the secretariat itself, another technical committee
or subcommittee, an organization in liaison, the Technical Management
Board or one of the advisory groups, or the Secretary-General.
Guidelines for proposing and justifying a new work item are given in the
ISO/IEC Directives (part 1, annex Q) (see extract overleaf).

**The proposal** (to be completed by the proposer)

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > **Title of proposal** (in the    |                                 |
| > case of an amendment or          |                                 |
| > revision, or a new part, of an   |                                 |
| > existing standard, show the      |                                 |
| > standard number)                 |                                 |
| >                                  |                                 |
| > **Knowledge Interchange Format** |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > **Scope** (as defined in 6.2.1   |                                 |
| > of part 3 of the ISO/IEC         |                                 |
| > Directives)                      |                                 |
| >                                  |                                 |
| > The Knowledge Interchange Format |                                 |
| > (KIF) will be a language         |                                 |
| > designed for use in the          |                                 |
| > interchange of knowledge among   |                                 |
| > disparate computer systems. It   |                                 |
| > will be a logically              |                                 |
| > comprehensive language with a    |                                 |
| > declarative semantics, and it    |                                 |
| > will provide for the             |                                 |
| > representation of knowledge      |                                 |
| > about knowledge.                 |                                 |
| >                                  |                                 |
| > The standard will be divided     |                                 |
| > into three parts. Part 1         |                                 |
| > (KIF-Core) specifies the syntax  |                                 |
| > and semantics of a language      |                                 |
| > equivalent to first-order logic. |                                 |
| > Part 2 (Sorted KIF) is an        |                                 |
| > expansion of the language of     |                                 |
| > KIF-Core that specifies the      |                                 |
| > syntax and semantics of a        |                                 |
| > many-sorted first-order logic,   |                                 |
| > providing tor the specification  |                                 |
| > of class hierarchies. Part 3     |                                 |
| > (MetaKIF) is an expansion of the |                                 |
| > language of KIF-Core that        |                                 |
| > formalizes the syntax and        |                                 |
| > semantics of the metatheory of   |                                 |
| > KIF-Core.                        |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > **Purpose and justification**    |                                 |
| > (attach a separate page as       |                                 |
| > annex, if necessary)             |                                 |
|                                    |                                 |
| The creation of disparate          |                                 |
| knowledge-based systems by         |                                 |
| different programmers, at          |                                 |
| different times, and in different  |                                 |
| knowledge representation languages |                                 |
| has led to barriers to             |                                 |
| interoperability among these       |                                 |
| systems. By providing a logically  |                                 |
| comprehensive language, KIF will   |                                 |
| have the capability of expressing  |                                 |
| arbitrary logical sentences within |                                 |
| these systems. A declarative       |                                 |
| semantics will make it possible to |                                 |
| understand the meaning of          |                                 |
| expressions in the language        |                                 |
| without appeal to an interpreter   |                                 |
| for manipulating those             |                                 |
| expressions.                       |                                 |
|                                    |                                 |
| Although there are many areas of   |                                 |
| continuing research on knowledge   |                                 |
| representation, only those         |                                 |
| concepts that are universally      |                                 |
| accepted within the knowledge      |                                 |
| representation and mathematical    |                                 |
| logic communities will be proposed |                                 |
| for standardization. This will be  |                                 |
| restricted to languages that are   |                                 |
| equivalent in expressiveness to    |                                 |
| first-order logic and the          |                                 |
| metatheory of first-order logic.   |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > **Target date** (indicate the    |                                 |
| > date by which the availability   |                                 |
| > of the **2002**                  |                                 |
|                                    |                                 |
| International Standard is          |                                 |
| considered to be necessary)        |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > **Relevant documents to be       |                                 |
| > considered**                     |                                 |
| >                                  |                                 |
| > **     **                        |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > **Relationship of project to     |                                 |
| > activities of other              |                                 |
| > international bodies**           |                                 |
| >                                  |                                 |
| > **     KIF is being used as the  |                                 |
| > basis for ontology-based         |                                 |
| > standards work, particularly the |                                 |
| > Process Specification Language   |                                 |
| > (ISO 18629) within               |                                 |
| > TC184/SC4/JWG8 and the Standard  |                                 |
| > Upper Ontology project within    |                                 |
| > IEEE.**                          |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > **Liaison organizations**        | > **Need for coordination       |
| >                                  | > within ISO and IEC**          |
| > **     **                        | >                               |
|                                    | > **     KIF will have the same |
|                                    | > semantic foundations as       |
|                                    | > Conceptual Graphs.**          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > **Preparatory work**             |                                 |
| >                                  |                                 |
| > A draft is attached              |                                 |
| >                                  |                                 |
| > NOTE: A draft of Part 1 of KIF   |                                 |
| > is attached.                     |                                 |
| >                                  |                                 |
| > An outline is attached and it    |                                 |
| > will be possible to supply a     |                                 |
| > draft by (date)                  |                                 |
| >                                  |                                 |
| > NOTE: Outlines for Parts 2 and 3 |                                 |
| > of KIF are attached. Drafts are  |                                 |
| > expected by May 2001.            |                                 |
| >                                  |                                 |
| > Proposed project leader (name    |                                 |
| > and address): **Michael          |                                 |
| > Gruninger, National Institute of |                                 |
| > Standards and Technology, 100    |                                 |
| > Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg MD    |                                 |
| > 20878**                          |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| > **Concerns known patented items\ | > Signature of the proposer     |
| > **(see part 2 of the ISO/IEC     | >                               |
| > Directives)                      | > **Michael Gruninger**         |
| >                                  |                                 |
| >    yes    no                     |                                 |
| >                                  |                                 |
| > If YES, provide full information |                                 |
| > as annex                         |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

+-----------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
| > Date of       | > Closing date   | > Signature of the TC or SC     |
| > circulation   | > for voting     | > secretary                     |
| >               | >                | >                               |
| > **     **     | > **     **      | > **     **                     |
+-----------------+------------------+---------------------------------+

**Comments and recommendations of the TC or SC secretariat**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Comments with respect to the proposal in general, and             |
| > recommendation thereon**                                            |
| >                                                                     |
| > (Indicate any issues to be brought to the notice of committee       |
| > members. For instance, refer to any associated vote on form 5       |
| > regarding adoption of any attached draft for direct progression to  |
| > CD or DIS.)                                                         |
| >                                                                     |
| > **     **                                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Elements to be clarified when proposing a new work item** (new
standard)

**Title**

Indicate the subject matter of the proposed new standard.

**Scope**

Give a clear indication of the coverage of the proposed new work item
and, if necessary for clarity, exclusions.

**Purpose and justification**

Give details based on a critical study of the following elements
wherever practicable.

> a)  The specific aims and reason for the standardization activity,
> with particular emphasis on the aspects of standardization to be
> covered, the problems it is expected to solve or the difficulties it
> is intended to overcome.
>
> b)  The main interests that might benefit from or be affected by the
> activity, such as industry, consumers, trade, governments,
> distributors.
>
> c)  Feasibility of the activity: Are there factors that could hinder
> the successful establishment or general application of the standard?
>
> d)  Timeliness of the standard to be produced: Is the technology
> reasonably stabilized? If not, how much time is likely to be available
> before advances in technology may render the proposed standard
> outdated? Is the proposed standard required as a basis for the future
> development of the technology in question?
>
> e)  Urgency of the activity, considering the needs of other fields or
> organizations. Indicate target date and, when a series of standards is
> proposed, suggest priorities.
>
> f)  The benefits to be gained by the implementation of the proposed
> standard; alternatively, the loss or disadvantage(s) if no standard is
> established within a reasonable time. Data such as product volume or
> value of trade should be included and quantified.
>
> g)  If the standardization activity is, or is likely to be, the
> subject of regulations or to require the harmonization of existing
> regula­tions, this should be indicated.

If a series of new work items is proposed, the purpose and the
justification of which is common, a common proposal may be drafted
including all elements to be clarified and enumerating the titles and
scopes of each individual item.

**Relevant documents**

List any known relevant documents (such as standards and regulations),
regardless of their source. When the proposer considers that an existing
well-established document may be acceptable as a standard (with or
without amendments) indicate this with appropriate justification and
attach a copy to the proposal.

**Cooperation and liaison**

List relevant organizations or bodies with which cooperation and liaison
should exist.

**Preparatory work**

Indicate whether the proposer or the proposer\'s organization is
prepared to undertake the preparatory work required for the new work
item.