Re: SUO: Any further discussion on SUMO before we vote?
Lee,
For the record, you raise the same issue, time and time again and have
been unwilling to accept the simple factual answer. There are no
proprietary encumbrances to SUMO, it is in the public domain, it is not
proprietary, it can be used for any purpose be it academic or commercial
and for profit without any fee or restriction to the IEEE, Teknowledge,
Stanford, MIT Press, or anyone else. Phrase it however you like, however
many times you like, the answer is the same. If the IEEE's process is not
acceptable to you, you're not required to participate, but it's not
consistent with "established ethical practice" to attempt to impede
progress of those who accept the framework of the forum that we're involved in.
Adam
At 12:41 AM 8/2/2001 -0400, Josiah Lee Auspitz wrote:
>Adam,
>
>For the record--
>
>I have put forth the following special conditions affecting SUO as reasons
>for voluntary disclosure beyond copyright:
>
>1. The established ethical practice in the ontology field has been to
>disclose proprietary material up front (microtheories, algorithms,
>node-leaf relations, parsers, etc).
>
>2. Content is not self-sufficient in an upper level ontology without a
>further apparatus which may or may not be in the public domain. So
>copyright release does not cover the problem of encumbrance.
>
>3. In contrast to many other IEEE standards efforts, a majority of SUO
>voting participants appear to be from the non-profit sector. As a courtesy
>to non-profit participants an early indication of proprietary encumbrances
>beyond copyright seems reasonable.
>
>4. The plurality of starter documents for SUO makes a weighing of them
>with respect to their relative encumbrances a relevant consideration.
>Example: Cyc's ethical disclosure of proprietary microtheories gives pause
>to those who might want to use their upper level as a starter ontology.
>
>5. By IEEE and ANSI rules, the kinds of disclosures requested will have
>to be made in any case at the end of the process.
>
>Lee
>
>Josiah Lee Auspitz
>lee@textwise.com
>17 Chapel Street
>Somerville, MA 02144
>617-628-6228
>fax -9441
>
>Please send attachments pasted within text or in ASCII
>Plain Text non-proprietary software.
>
>On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Adam Pease wrote:
>
> >
> > Folks,
> > Lee once again raises issues that have been ruled out of bounds by the
> > chair as well as the IEEE appeals board. Lee and this group have been
> > repeatedly informed of the fact that Teknowledge and other authors of
> > content in SUMO have provided the IEEE with the copyright release required
> > to ensure that the IEEE SUO (as well as the SUMO proposal) are free, open
> > and unencumbered by any proprietary restrictions. I suppose that since
> > this has been said more than once already it will have to be said again,
> > but it shouldn't need to be.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> > At 05:45 AM 7/31/2001 -0400, Josiah Lee Auspitz wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Ian,
> > >
> > >To complete the discussion it would be helpful were you to respond to
> > >the generic questions posed, as Robert Kent has done, so that we can vote
> > >more knowledgeably.
> > >
> > >My reading of the progress since the straw vote discussion differs from
> > >yours on several points, as detailed below. If I have misread the status
> > >of the SUMO work, the most economical way to address this would be through
> > >the generic questions, as these are pared down to cover the most essential
> > >points.
> > >
> > >Lee
> > >
> > >On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Ian Niles wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Lee,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for bringing together all of these issues. Below are my
> > > > responses.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Ian
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Josiah Lee Auspitz [mailto:lee@textwise.com]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 2:33 AM
> > > > > To: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
> > > > > Cc: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> > > > > Subject: Re: SUO: Any further discussion on SUMO before we vote?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A vote is always a good formal occasion for review of basics. I have
> > > > > questions that are a) generic to any working document, and I have
> sent
> > > > > these to Ian and Robert Kent for prior comment, and b) specific to
> > > > > SUMO.
> > > > >
> > > > > Under b), it would be helpful if Ian could review the
> > > > > progress made since
> > > > > the straw vote in achieving consensus on the issues raised at
> > > > > that time
> > > > > (January 14-February 15). Here is the list that Jim
> > > > > Schoening selected
> > > > > for consensus, using his terms and numbers:
> > > > >
> > > > > #1 Foundations
> > > >
> > > > My response here has not changed in the intervening months, so I'll
> just
> > > > quote it below.
> > > >
> > > > Here is my response to the criticism that we need to get clear about
> > > > foundations/methodology before proceeding to the development of an
> actual
> > > > ontology. It seems to me that the 2,500 year history of philosophy
> is a
> > > > fairly powerful argument against this approach. Although
> philosophy is a
> > > > great source of stimulating debate and theoretical insight, one
> would be
> > > > hard-pressed to point to anything on which a majority of philosophers
> > > agree.
> > > > Furthermore, I think that theoretical discussion is most useful
> when it is
> > > > grounded in a concrete fabric within which this discussion has a
> > > context and
> > > > an application. I would argue that the best way of obtaining
> consensus is
> > > > to produce an initial document (no matter how flawed) and then to
> revise it
> > > > over many, many iterations of criticism and comment.
> > >
> > >JLA: The admission of no change on the "foundational" issue since February
> > >is accurate but not encouraging, since it was in various forms the main
> > >issue raised in several of the number points below. On my reading of the
> > >Jan 14-Feb 15 discussion, an overwhelming majority of those who expressed
> > >an opinion expressed a strong desire to work on a document with greater
> > >methodological and architectural integrity than SUMO had then mustered.
> > >The vote was 11 yea, 9 nay, 3 abstentions. My reading of the discussion is
> > >that the positive margin was a courtesy produced by public switches of
> > >votes in order not to shut off work. On the issue of insufficient
> > >groundednesss, all of the nine nay votes and three abstains expressed such
> > >a view, as did at least two of the yea votes (14 in all). The only
> > >positive views of the merger method followed came from the three
> > >Teknowledge employees, though I counted three additional voices who wanted
> > >to get on with work on something and saw SUMO as the only base from which
> > >to proceed. My count on the issue of insufficient groundedness was 14-3
> > >(all three apparently under unified financial coordination that will be
> > >counted as 1 voice in any final ANSI approval) or 14-6, if you count the
> > >"something is better than nothing" sentiment. The point here is that in
> > >February you got a sympathy vote to continue but behind this a really
> > >strong message that more attention to "foundational" issues was
> > >appropriate.
> > >
> > >Your remark about the 2500 year history of philosophy producing no final
> > >agreement seems to neglect the one thing about which all philosophers do
> > >in point of fact agree: that one pursue a set of ideas to their conceptual
> > >grounds, accept logical criticism and seek insofar as possible a
> > >self-aware and self-limiting presentation committed to making everything
> > >discursive that can be made so. This is why so many of us find
> > >unconvincing the statement by Adam that you should be compared to a
> > >novelist, a Marcel Proust of ontologies, engaged in an creative process
> > >not open to methodization or explication. There is no objection to
> > >undertaking such a creative enterprise, of course, but it is by definition
> > >not a standards enterprise.
> > >
> > >Is it possible that you are taking the current philosophical fashion of
> > >"anti-foundationalism" as a warrant for a misplaced reliance on
> > >individuality and muddling through in *standards* work? In standards work
> > >originality and muddling through are specifically what is not sought. And
> > >"foundations" in the sense of an articulated method and architectonic are
> > >indeed what is sought. The many interesting areas in which they cannot be
> > >found are not ripe for standardization under a technical rubric.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > #2 Comments from Thomas McCabe
> > > >
> > > > Francis McCabe had four general comments regarding the SUMO. The
> first was
> > > > that he agreed with Pat Hayes with regard to various unspecified
> issues.
> > >
> > >
> > >It would be hard to describe Pat Hayes' issues as unspecified. He was
> > >very specific as you make clear below, and several correspondents
> > >referred to his entire critique with approval. Nevertheless in order to
> > >help in producing a yellow as opposed to a red light, Hayes changed his
> > >vote to abstain.
> > >
> > > > The second was that the SUMO was not structured and lacked well-defined
> > > > interfaces. I think this second criticism is at least partially
> met now,
> > > > since we have developed an online ontology browser in the interim
> > > > (http://ontology.teknowledge.com).
> > >
> > >The interface and the structure issues are quite distinct, but this gets
> > >back to the issue of "fundamentals" that you do not wish to address. I
> > >believe that McCabe was adding a software engineering perspective: that
> > >without an architecture the system will not scale.
> > >
> > >The third and fourth comments were
> > > > essentially to propose a methodology for developing an ontology:
> > > >
> > > > 1. develop use case scenarios
> > > > 2. develop and focus on key abstractions; to be followed by a
> reification
> > > > later
> > > > 3. brainstorm + gradual crystalization of consensus.
> > > >
> > > > (a) more concern about engineering issues,
> > > > (b) less focus on the concrete and more on the key
> abstractions. (This is
> > > > NOT a contradiction)
> > > >
> > > > I agree with the methodology, and I have consciously tried to follow
> > > it. In
> > > > particular, I have tried to purge the ontology of philosophical
> > > distinctions
> > > > which are not needed to support plausible, hypothetical use cases
> of the
> > > > ontology.
> > >
> > >What cases are now central in your mind? What is the test for their
> > >generalization and scalability? Are there semantic choices (resolution of
> > >"bow ties") that have been made without annotation adequate to assure
> > >that their case specificity is transparent?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > #3 Flawed Approach
> > > >
> > > > This was Pat Hayes' criticism, and I quote from his email:
> > > >
> > > > It has no overall coherent ontological model; it represents a melange
> > > > of conflicting and incommensurate views on many basic ontological
> > > > issues. Its axioms have no global coherence (for example: the
> > > > intended meaning of the quantifiers varies from one place to another
> > > > in the document; later axioms do not conform to the categories
> > > > introduced in the earlier axioms; many, if not most, of the major
> > > > classifications depend on questionable and controversial philosphical
> > > > presuppositions.) It fails to address many of the basic ontological
> > > > issues that ned to be got clear before we can put any ontology to
> > > > practical use (how to represent time and change, how to deal with
> > > > alternative courses of reality, for example. ) Moreover, it is clear
> > > > that the more 'pieces' are added to it, the more these problems are
> > > > going to get worse rather than better.
> > > >
> > > > As I understand it, this is really two criticisms. One is that the
> > > SUMO was
> > > > a mish-mash rather than a coherent conceptual structure, and the
> other is
> > > > that it did not incorporate an adquate theory of time and change. My
> > > > response is that these criticisms were, unfortunately, largely true
> of the
> > > > SUMO when the criticisms were raised (January 15th). However, since
> > > then, I
> > > > have devoted a large amount of my time to making the ontology more
> coherent
> > > > (by eliminating redundancies, rewriting the documentation strings,
> purging
> > > > elements that were deemed to be exclusively of philosophical
> interest, and
> > > > by making sure that each concept in the ontology is defined only in
> > > terms of
> > > > other concepts in the ontology), and I have substantially revised and
> > > > extended the theory of time. You can see most of this theory in the
> > > current
> > > > version of the ontology by browsing downward from the node
> 'TimeMeasure'.
> > > >
> > >
> > >The forward movement would be more encouraging in the context of having
> > >met several threshold conditions that are prior: on practical purpose,
> > >best practices, and self-definition, see under #4, #6 and #8 below.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > #4 Practical Purpose
> > > >
> > > > The criticism here was due to Chris Partridge, and he argued that
> the SUMO
> > > > contained (unspecified) inconsistencies and served no practical
> purpose. I
> > > > think his first criticism was right then, and it's probably still right
> > > > today. However, I think there are far fewer inconsistencies today than
> > > > there were back then. As for practical purpose, I think the SUMO
> will be
> > > > suitable for semantic search, sense disambiguation, system
> > > interoperability,
> > > > and knowledge discovery.
> > > >
> > >
> > >JLA: You do seem here to have made a good faith effort to address
> > >functional purposes as opposed to merely domain applications covered in
> > >your straw vote response. I note that the use of an ontology for
> > >pedagogical purposes-- as a normative conceptual hierarchy-- has been
> > >dropped since the PAR vote discussions.
> > >
> > >However, the enduring problem here lies in the tradeoff among purposes.
> > >Upper levels tuned to knowledge discovery (e.g. Cyc with microtheories)
> > >are notoriously ill-suited to search and vice-versa (e.g. WordNet with
> > >synsets), and each of these usually requires supplemental devices for
> > >practical use. Without making clear the dominant area of purpose, there
> > >is no non-intuitive way to resolve crucial issues that arise.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > #5 Email Process
> > > >
> > > > I don't think this criticism applies specifically to the SUMO, so I
> won't
> > > > address it here.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > #6 Best Practices
> > > >
> > > > The criticism here was that the SUMO did not reflect best practices,
> > > because
> > > > it did not incorporate linguistically motivated taxonomies like
> > > WordNet. My
> > > > response is that Teknowledge has embarked on a project of mapping all
> > > of the
> > > > nouns of WordNet to the SUMO. This will have two advantages: it will
> > > > function as a completeness check on the content of the SUMO, and it
> will
> > > > result in a set of mappings which will allow NLP applications to make
> > > use of
> > > > the SUMO.
> > > >
> > >
> > >JLA: The unaddressed issue of best practices, which I tried to contribute
> > >to this and to the prior pre-PAR discussion, has not been covered by
> > >drawing on WordNet for a completeness check of vocabulary. There is an
> > >existing/best practice in this field-- which includes upper level
> > >ontologies in specific domains like medicine-- that is overwhelmingly
> > >accepted, and to which I know no exception: namely, that any upper level
> > >ontology can be neither more nor less than a reference object
> > >implementing, in accordance with certain design choices, including
> > >semantic choices, an underlying set of protocols and practices of which
> > >they are a partial but good faith instantiation. This is why the question
> > >about a reference ontology or reference object is the first generic
> > >question on my list to be asked of any document candidate, and the only
> > >one to which there is a right or wrong answer. There has been a pattern
> > >of dogmatic resistance to this issue in SUMO-- at one point, in a
> > >discussion with Matthew West, SUMO was specifically *contrasted* with a
> > >Reference Ontology! This makes one wonder what it is you and Adam think
> > >any ultimate standard may be, and whether you and Adam think that it would
> > >somehow be "not a standard" to put something forth as a reference object.
> > >Is the standard meter in Paris not a standard by virtue of being a
> > >reference object? Is the Oxford English Dictionary disqualified from such
> > >authority as it has by virtue of being a reference object?
> > >
> > >JLA: #6a Ethical Best Practice
> > >
> > >Moreover, there are, though this is an issue that was not raised under
> > >this heading in the straw vote discussion, certain ethical practices on
> > >intellectual property disclosure in the ontological field that have so far
> > >not been followed by Teknowledge. Following the academic basis for the
> > >topic pioneered on the Stanford Ontolingua site, most contributors of
> > >upper level artifacts have been upfront about declaring whether their
> > >approach has proprietary elements that will involve users in charges that
> > >inure to the benefit of the proposer. IBM was straightforward in pointing
> > >to the role of a proprietary parser in its vision and candid about
> > >internal efforts to make it freely available. Cyc and the Japanese EDS
> > >were explicit about the need to purchase other items to make use of what
> > >was freely contributed to a starter document. If Teknowledge has
> > >something proprietary of this kind, it should let us know up front; if
> > >not, it would be *very* useful to know that. There is an ethical best
> > >practice in this field that you are not following.
> > >
> > >I am aware that the existing practice in IEEE and ANSI is to postpone
> > >intellectual property declarations to the end of the process, but this
> > >does not anticipate a field where the ethics are already grounded in the
> > >perception that standard copyright releases are meaningless without
> > >additional declarations.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > #7 Funding Realism
> > > >
> > > > The comment here was a recommendation that any ontology adopted as a
> > > > starting document have a critical mass of participants who are
> willing to
> > > > make a long-term commitment to the work of filling out and refining the
> > > > ontology. My response is that the SUMO incorporates substantive
> and much
> > > > appreciated contributions from several SUO mailing list members,
> including
> > > > Helena Sofia Pinto, Patrick Cassidy, Chris Menzel, David Whitten, John
> > > Sowa,
> > > > and others.
> > > >
> > >
> > >JLA: If as many as four of these are prepared to see the SUMO through to
> > >the end, I would consider this a strong indication.
> > >
> > >The question, however, applied also to Teknowledge itself. It
> > >specifically asked for the level of participation of those not on
> > >short-term government contract. If the government contract(s) under which
> > >a small firm like Teknowledge is supporting this work expires, who will
> > >carry on the work? At the time this question was posed Teknowledge had a
> > >February 15 expiration date on what appeared from public records to be its
> > >primary contract for SUMO. If this has been extended, for how long?
> > >Though I do not doubt your genuine intellectual interest in the topic, I
> > >question whether you could spend the time to sustain a standard without
> > >being able to consider the hours as fulfillment of a government contract
> > >or grant. The sad experience of the previous four-year onto-standard
> > >effort was that the termination of outside funding (in this case by IBM)
> > >put the effort into hibernation.
> > >
> > >Adam has recently used the comparison of SUO to the DAML and OIL efforts
> > >which are supported with US and EU government funds in the tens of
> > >millions of dollars. Contractees are listed on those sites so that
> > >everyone who participates in those efforts, including those many
> > >non-profit participants not on contract, has a clear sense of what the
> > >core support for the effort is.
> > >
> > >The IEEE standards model has traditionally made disclosures of support for
> > >standards work optional, and some have argued that even to raise the
> > >question should be forbidden. But if SUMO hopes to succeed on the
> > >institutional basis of the DAML and OIL institutional models, a similar
> > >disclosure of public funding is warranted.
> > >
> > >Of course, no amount of support will push an untenable design through, so
> > >this is not an issue on the same level as numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8.
> > >
> > >It is also possible that a modest level of support can suffice where the
> > >intellectual grounding is firm and the aims and areas of application are
> > >clear and limited. But I would object strongly to accepting any
> > >submission as a working document where *both* the intellectual and the
> > >institutional groundings are left murky.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > #8 No better than Cyc
> > > >
> > > > I think this criticism is unduly pessimistic. There is a lot to
> like about
> > > > Cyc, but I think there are also legitimate concerns about its
> usability.
> > > > Furthermore, there are distinct advantages of the SUMO. The ontology
> > > has an
> > > > engineering focus, it is being subjected to peer-review by some of
> the best
> > > > minds in the field, and it is undergoing a completeness check
> against the
> > > > whole WordNet noun database.
> > > >
> > >
> > >JLA: Cyc is in business with an ontology and proprietary micro theories
> > >that tune it for inference. The Cyc ontology will be made freely
> > >available in the great old American tradition of giving away free razors
> > >to sell more razor blades. I think you need to address straightforwardly
> > >
> > >a) whether the IEEE venue is being used to mount a commercial rival to Cyc
> > >with an alternative set of proprietary materials. This can be indicated
> > >very simply by an early disclosure of proprietary encumbrances, if any, on
> > >the Teknowledge submission. ANSI practices require such a disclosure in
> > >any case prior to document publication;
> > >
> > >b) regardless of the extent of commercial intent, what contribution or
> > >niche not covered by Cyc is sought? This gets us back to the practical
> > >purposes question and the tradeoffs between search and inference.
> > >
> > >I should note that the invoking of peer review as an advantage of SUMO
> > >over Cyc is not very convincing so long as the resounding signals from the
> > >"experts" on fundamentals remain unaddressed, and so long as there is no
> > >disclosure of which, if any, of the peer reviewers is under contract to
> > >Teknowledge for the purpose of contributing to the SUMO development.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In addition, Frederick Chase went through the comments to select
> > > > > eight issues that were seen as "show stoppers" (that is,
> > > > > absolute points
> > > > > of disqualification) by one or more members. I use his
> abbreivations:
> > > > >
> > >
> > >JLA: I limit myself to responding to the one of these issues that I
> > >contributed, abbreviated by Fred Chase as XMP, though I would be
> > >interested in the responses of others to what they considered absolute
> > >disqualifications. Please scroll down to XMP.
> > >
> > > > > T&C (time and change)
> > >
> > > > This part of the ontology has been substantially expanded and
> refined since
> > > > February. You can check it out by entering 'TimeMeasure' in the
> > > browser and
> > > > clicking downward.
> > > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ACR (alternative courses of reality)
> > > >
> > > > The core of PSL (Process Specification Language) has been
> incorporated into
> > > > the SUMO since February. Further, now as then, the SUMO includes
> the basic
> > > > modal operators 'possible' and 'necessary'.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > URV (unrelated views)
> > > >
> > > > This was the criticism that the SUMO contains inconsistent claims,
> and I've
> > > > responded to this above.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 4D
> > > >
> > > > I've tried to work around the 3D/4D debate as much as
> possible. The SUMO
> > > > does incorporate a distinction between 'Process' and
> 'Object'. However,
> > > > users who feel that this distinction should not or cannot be made
> are free
> > > > to use the subsuming concept of 'Physical'.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nth (dimension)
> > > >
> > > > The objection here was that the predicate 'nth-domain' should not
> be used,
> > > > since one of its argument positions is filled with integers and a
> theory of
> > > > integers was not a part of the SUMO. My response is that, for
> those who
> > > > find this criticism persuasive, Chris Menzel has developed a theory of
> > > > integer arithmetic as part of his structural ontology.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > DOI (domain of interest)
> > > >
> > > > This criticism was that the SUMO lacked (unspecified) hooks for
> aligning
> > > > some domain-specific ontologies. This criticism is probably true
> of the
> > > > SUMO and of every other upper-level ontology. I think the completeness
> > > > check involving the WordNet lexical database will go a long way towards
> > > > addressing this criticism.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > XMP (example)
> > > >
> > > > I'll quote Frederick Chase's words verbatim: "It is necessary that
> the
> > > IEEE
> > > > SUO be
> > > > an *example* of an upper level which can be adapted, extended, or
> partly
> > > > disabled. The current Merged Ontology is not an example." This
> criticism
> > > > simply does not apply to any version of the SUMO. It has been
> continuously
> > > > extended (as one can see by browsing the version history of the source
> > > > files), and it has been adapted to the many criticisms that have been
> > > voiced
> > > > on the list.
> > >
> > >
> > >JLA: Having contributed this issue to Fred's list, I think he was trying
> > >to render without jargon the point about a reference object discussed
> > >under "Best Practices" above. I think he succeeded (he provided a software
> > >illustration at the time) and that your response still shows that the
> > >issue has not been understood.
> > >
> > >The question is not whether the development process is open and adapts to
> > >criticisms from this email list, but whether the ground is laid in advance
> > >so that the final document will be self limiting and open to
> > >reconfiguration and repurposing by the user. The first test of this, is
> > >the ability to state clearly the conceptual specs of the artifact, as
> > >requested in the list of "generic" questions submitted to you in
> > >preliminary form on July 17.
> > >
> > >And yes, the point about a reference object is still in my view an
> > >absolute disqualification to accepting any document as a working document,
> > >and any person as a technical editor.
> > >
> > >I do not, in other words, think it a kindness to say that 'something is
> > >better than nothing' or 'who am I to ask others not to go ahead with
> > >their own work'. If SUMO can't get this one simple thing right, it
> > >is not ready for consideration as the basis for a standard.
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > REF (reference)
> > > >
> > > > This comment relates to the capabilities of the knowledge
> representation
> > > > language, rather than the ontology, so I won't address it here.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps Ian and others could give us an intellectual status
> > > > > report on how
> > > > > they have dealt with these criticisms in the new version,
> > > > > including which
> > > > > criticism have been discarded for cause.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lee
> > > > >
> > > > > Josiah Lee Auspitz
> > > > > lee@textwise.com
> > > > > 17 Chapel Street
> > > > > Somerville, MA 02144
> > > > > 617-628-6228
> > > > > fax -9441
> > > > >
> > > > > Please send attachments pasted within text or in ASCII
> > > > > Plain Text non-proprietary software.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SUO,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps some missed this motion by IAN. We are now in
> > > > > a discussion
> > > > > > period. Thoughts, anyone?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jim Schoening
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 9:07 AM
> > > > > > To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> > > > > > Subject: FW: RE: SUMO as a starter document
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't vote just yet on SUMO.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ian's posting was a motion, and I'll take Robert Bordogna's
> > > > > vote as a
> > > > > > 'second.'
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are there any discussions as this time?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jim Schoening
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Ian Niles [mailto:iniles@teknowledge.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 1:36 PM
> > > > > > To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> > > > > > Subject: SUO: RE: SUMO as a starter document
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just wanted to clarify a couple of things with regard to
> > > > > my proposal of
> > > > > > the SUMO as a starter document. First, I am proposing
> > > > > version 1.15 (the
> > > > > > latest version) of the SUMO as the starter document. I
> > > > > will update the
> > > > > > http://suo.ieee.org/suopapers.htm web page so that it points to
> this
> > > > > > version. Second, I am volunteering to be technical editor
> > > > > of the SUMO if it
> > > > > > is accepted by the group as a starter document.
> > > > > > -Ian
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > Adam Pease
> > Teknowledge
> > (650) 424-0500 x571
> >
> >
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571