RE: 2nd Call for vote on SUO Scope and Purpose
Eric,
Could you reiterate the "relatively simple subset" that you refer to?
Adam
At 08:37 AM 7/25/2000 -0400, Eric Peterson wrote:
>Hi Adam;
>
>Thanks for your response. Please see below:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: apease [mailto:apease@teknowledge.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 9:06 PM
> > To: Eric Peterson; 'Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I'
> > Cc: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail); Ontology Group
> > Subject: RE: 2nd Call for vote on SUO Scope and Purpose
> >
> >
> > Eric,
> > The addition you suggest to the Scope and Purpose certainly seems
> > reasonable to me. Separate issues you raise I attempt to restate
> > below. However, I don't think any of them impact the Scope
> > and Purpose and
> > I hope you'll be willing to change your vote now that these
> > discussion
> > topics have been raised.
>
>I really want to vote yes, but my semantics for yes require me to think that
>the document describes a plausible path to success. I think it's close, but
>without scoping the effort back to the relatively simple subset that I
>described, I fear that we will get lost in the tangle of controversy and
>complexity. On the simpler path, we might loose some who think they need
>more intellectual challenge, but that will leave those of us who are willing
>to do the humble and essential task of rolling up our sleeves, putting on
>the hip waders, and plodding around in the wet concrete of the structural
>foundation of the SUO ;^)
-----------------
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571