SUO: VOTE on SUMO as candidate
Jim,
. I vote "YES" on the question of accepting the SUMO
as a candidate for development into the final SUO document, with the
understanding that any other candidates will have equal status with the
SUMO, if it is adopted as a candidate.
. My conditions are based on the advice below from Patrick
Cassidy.
. If that advice is not correct, please advise me, so I can
reconsider my vote.
. My vote is a personal one, and is not on behalf of any
organisation or country.
Cheers Graham Horn
National Data Standards Unit
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
================================================
Phone: 02.6244.1094
Fax: 02.6244.1199
Email: Graham.Horn@aihw.gov.au <mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au>
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Cassidy [mailto:pcassidy@bellatlantic.net]
Sent: Thursday, 2 August 2001 4:34
To: Adam Pease
Cc: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
Subject: SUO: Re: VOTE on SUMO as candidate
I revise my vote from "NO" to "YES" on the question of accepting the SUMO
as a candidate for development into the final SUO document, with the
understanding that any other candiates will have equal status with the SUMO,
if it is adopted as a candidate.
The comments received from Adam and Jim make it clear that a "YES" vote
does not confer any special status on the SUMO relative to other candidates
which may be proposed. The comment from Jim Schoening (sent privately) is
quoted below. These records of agreement should serve to make changes in the
actual wording of the resolution unnecessary to satisfy my concerns, though
I hope the wording I suggested or something more explicit will be used for
adoption of future candidates. I am changing my vote to avoid a lengthy
re-balloting, as Jim's note indicates that amendments will cause additional
delay.
Using these comments as part of an "official record" rather than
revising the actual wording of the resolution is admittedly an imperfect
process, but the e-mail discussion process is so cumbersome that it is, I
think, reasonable to provide some leeway in the formalities of the process.
Pat Cassidy
==================================================
"Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I" wrote:
>
> Patrick,
>
> I see your point and like your wording better. The problem is
that
> it will be hard to amend a ballot once released. If it fails by a close
> margin, it could be resubmitted with the revised wording. If it passes,
we
> could amend it if nobody objected. I talked to Adam who had no problem
with
> the revised wording, but didn't want to start over again with the ballot.
> The clause was developed and revised by the P&P Subgroup, and I
can
> assure you there was no intent to give any document any special status.
> Also, regardless of any clause, the only way a document could gain greater
> status than another is to generate greater consensus, so the clause could
> even be left out.
> I don't believe amendments can be made to a motion once it is in
> balloting, so I think we'll need to let the ballot run its course.
> Robert Kent's IFF ballot will be released soon. Did you want to
> propose these changes for that ballot?
>
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Cassidy [mailto:pcassidy@bellatlantic.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 10:14 AM
> To: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
> Cc: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subject: Vote: Re: SUO: FW: SUO E-mail Ballot (SUMO)
>
> I vote NO on the following ballot.
> I would like to see the same ballot proposed with a slightly
> different wording, as I feel that the SUMO is thus far the most
> valuable contribution to this discussion and should be developed
> as we have envisioned as a serious candidate for the SUO.
> My only concern is the wording of the proposal, which is not
> sufficiently clear (to me) that there may be multiple candidates
> of equal "formal" status. This concern is similar (I think)
> to what has been voiced by others on this issue.
> The point I think needs to be crystal-clear is that no one
> working document which gains "candidate" status should have
> any priveleged position. The wording of note 2 can be read
> to mean that other candidates must be merged into this first
> candidate. This probably sounds like a nit-picking concern,
> in view of our lengthy prior discussions, but I hope that all
> formal ballots will be clear in a self-contained manner, so that
> there will be no later disputes as to the meaning of the approved
> proposal.
>
> Rather than the proposed wording:
>
> > "Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working Group
> > commence work on the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO) version 1.15
> > [June 22, 2001] posted at http://suo.ieee.org/Merge.txt, with the intent
> of
> > developing it into the final SUO document?
> > Note 1: See background information below for more details.
> > Note 2: This may be one of several candidate documents to be
> > combined and aligned into the final SUO document via the consensus
> building
> > process."
>
> I would suggest:
> > "Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working Group
> > commence work on the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO) version 1.15
> > [June 22, 2001] posted at http://suo.ieee.org/Merge.txt, with the intent
> of
> > developing it as a candidate for the final SUO document?
> > Note 1: See background information below for more details.
> > Note 2: This may be one of several candidate documents, any one
of
> > which may become the final SUO document, or may be combined and
> > aligned into the final SUO document via the consensus building
> > process. No one candidate document will have preferential status
relative
> > to the others."
>
> I regret that I was away on vacation when the discussions about the
> wording of the proposal were underway, and I apologize to the group for
> the
> inconvenience of suggesting wording changes at this late point.
>
> Pat Cassidy
>
> =================================
>
> "Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I" wrote:
> >
> > All SUO Subscribers,
> >
> > The following ballot was sent directly to SUO voting members;
> > however, all subscribers to this list are welcome to express their
> opinions
> > and submit comments.
> >
> > Jim Schoening
> >
> > ================================================
> >
> > ATTN Voting Members of SUO WG,
> >
> > 1. Please immediately acknowledge receipt of this email letter ballot.
If
> I
> > do not receive within 3-days, I will contact you again. We want to make
> > sure all voting members receive this ballot. The wording of this ballot
> was
> > developed and reviewed by the SUO Policies & Procedures Subgroup.
> >
> > 2. This message is to Ballot the question :
> >
> > "Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working Group
> > commence work on the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO) version 1.15
> > [June 22, 2001] posted at http://suo.ieee.org/Merge.txt, with the intent
> of
> > developing it into the final SUO document?
> > Note 1: See background information below for more details.
> > Note 2: This may be one of several candidate documents to be
> > combined and aligned into the final SUO document via the consensus
> building
> > process."
> >
> > 3. By 15 Aug '01, please vote YES (comments optional), NO (comments
> > required), or ABSTAIN (comments optional). Please send your votes and
> > comments directly to me, but you are also free to post to the SUO list
and
> > openly discuss this topic.
> >
> > 4. This vote will pass if it receives a majority of YES vs. NO votes.
> > ABSTAINS and non-votes are not counted in determining majority. The
Chair
> > may vote to make or break a tie. As all voting members will have
received
> > and acknowledge receipt of this ballot and will therefore have an
> > opportunity to vote, there will be no quorum of votes required for this
> > motion to be determined.
> >
> > 5. Non-voting participants are welcome to express opinions and submit
> > comments.
> >
> > 6. Background:
> >
> > a. The purpose of this vote is to determine the level of
consensus
> > we have for focusing work on this document. In other words, we need to
> > decide if we are going to go down this path or not. A working group may
> > decide to work on more than one document.
> >
> > b. The primary purpose of this vote is NOT to propose
improvements
> > to the document, unless they are major enough for you to vote against
> > focusing work on this document. However, such general improvement
> comments
> > are welcome and will be resolved (but not unless and until the vote
> passes,
> > since there would be no sense resolving comments if the group does not
> want
> > to proceed
> > with this document.
> >
> > c. If this vote passes, this document will change from being the
> > work (and under the control) of a group of individuals to being the work
> > (and under the control) of the SUO WG. A Technical Editor will be
> appointed
> > or elected, who will incorporate WG-approved changes into the document.
> > This does not require frequent formal votes for every change. A better
> > approach
> > for daily or weekly updates is to develop consensus by resolving
> objections,
> > as we did
> > when revising the Scope and Purpose. In other words, (1) the Technical
> > Editor leads the discussion by processing the issues and suggestions;
> (2)the
> > issues/suggestions identify proposed additions, changes, or deletions to
> the
> > wording in the document; (3) the Technical Editor asks the WG for any
> > objections. Items that do not have clear consensus would be accumulated
> for
> > later, more formal processing, i.e., the proposer of the
issue/suggestion
> is
> > responsible for making a formal proposal (with a WG vote) for the
proposed
> > change.
> >
> > Jim Schoening
> > Chair, SUO WG
>
> --
> =============================================
> Patrick Cassidy
>
> MICRA, Inc. || (908) 561-3416
> 735 Belvidere Ave. || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer)
> Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054 || (908) 668-5904 (fax)
>
> internet: cassidy@micra.com
> =============================================
--
=============================================
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc. || (908) 561-3416
735 Belvidere Ave. || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer)
Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054 || (908) 668-5904 (fax)
internet: cassidy@micra.com
=============================================