SUO: RE: Do I hear a 'second' to Robert's motion?
Jim,
I second Robert's motion, with the understanding that it does not prevent
other approaches from being developed in parallel.
Phil Jackson
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 7:11 PM
> To: 'standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org'
> Subject: SUO: Do I hear a 'second' to Robert's motion?
>
>
>
> SUO Voters,
>
> Do I hear a 'second' to this motion. But please, only one
> is needed.
>
> If so, are there any discussions before we vote?
>
> Jim Schoening
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert E. Kent
> To: SUO
> Sent: 7/26/01 4:54 PM
> Subject: SUO: Re: motion for the IFF Foundation Ontology version 1.0
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert E. Kent" <rekent@ontologos.org>
> To: "SUO" <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 1:45 PM
> Subject: SUO: motion for the IFF Foundation Ontology version 1.0
>
>
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I move that this group commence work on the IFF Foundation Ontology
> version
> > 1.0 [submitted on July 20, 2001] posted at
> > [http://suo.ieee.org/IFF-Foundation-Ontology.pdf] (670 KB, 111 pages),
> with
>
> That was the link yesterday, but it looks like the address has been
> changed
> now to [http://suo.ieee.org/Kent-IFF.pdf]. Anyway, it is one of the
> expert
> contributions listed on the page [http://suo.ieee.org/suopapers.htm].
>
> Robert E. Kent
> rekent@ontologos.org