RE: SUO: The Story So Far - Request for vote
Yes I support this too.
> >Nicola's proposal, below, makes a lot of sense to me.
> >
> > In practice, my proposal is as follows:
> >
> > 1. Let's carefully (and painfully) distinguish between axioms and
> > primitives that achieve (reasonably large) consensus and
> > axioms/primitives that do not;
> >
> > 2. When there is no consensus, let's isolate the
> alternatives and ask
> > the supporters to i) explain, ii) motivate and iii)
> formalize both of
> > them;
> >
> > 3. If enough explanation/motivation/formalization is
> achieved (up to
> > a certain minimal degree) for both alternatives, then:
> > 3.1 create a new branch in the ontology library
> > 3.2 go on specializing the two branches in parallel,
> depending on
> > the interest they
> > receive.
> >
> > 4. Else proceed by considering only the alternative that was best
> > explained, motivated, and formalized.
> > ----
>
> To me too. In fact I think something like this is the only rational
> way to proceed.
>
> Pat Hayes
>
Regards
Matthew
===============================================================
Matthew West http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
Principal Consultant Shell Visiting Professor
Operations & Asset Management The Keyworth Institute
Shell Services International The University of Leeds
http://www.shellservices.com/ http://www.keyworth.leeds.ac.uk/
H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
===============================================================