RE: 2nd Call for vote on SUO Scope and Purpose
Pat,
I agree.
Adam
At 01:37 PM 7/21/2000 -0400, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> Adam's point regarding "language issues" needs some discussion:
>
> > [Adam Pease]
> > 3. A language to emphasize frame statements. Personally, I'd like us not
>
> > to get hung up on language issues. The real point of this effort is
> > semantic content, not syntactic sugar. If folks want to create
>translation
> > tools to re-express the SUO automatically in various formats (frames,
> > pictures of graphs etc), I'm sure that will be helpful but doesn't really
> > seem central to our efforts.
>
> It's true that much unproductive time can be wasted in nit-picking
>about issues that are not central to a project, but the ease with a
>standard can be understood and used is an important matter when the standard
>is to be used for communication. The SUO standard that is proposed, if it
>is successful, will not be used merely by a few dozen adepts deeply versed
>in
>the arcana of philosophy and deontic logic, but tens of thousands of
>programmers who need to get up to speed and start using it for very
>practical
>purposes as quickly as possible. Any communication standard gains from
>widespread
>use, the more the better. It follows that *unnecessary* complications
>should be
>avoided, but if any notational device helps the learning process, it should
>be integrated
>with the standard itself, and not left for hapless initiates to try to
>discover
>and implement by themselves.
>
> Pat
-----------------
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571