SUO: Ballot Comment for Review
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim King
To: 'Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I'
Sent: 8/6/01 3:47 AM
Subject: RE: SUO E-mail Ballot -- Please Acknowledge receipt
I vote NO.
The document has inspired seemingly futile arguments about the
classification hierarchy, which as a mechanism does not appear to be the
correct foundation for an ontology. I also believe that the approach to
unit of measure is not adequate and I have received neither
authoritative nor detailed responses to my issues. Thus, I am not
convinced that the document is on the right track in neither technical
approach nor the method of creation.
Cheers,
Tim.
************************************************************************
*
*
* Dr. Timothy M. KING CEng MIMechE PhD DIC ACGI
* Executive Consultant, Technology
* LSC Group, Concept House, Victoria Road, TAMWORTH, UK - B79 7HL
* Switchboard: +44-1827-708000 Fax: +44-1827-708500
* Direct telephone: +44-1827-708535 (with VoiceMail)
* e-mail: tmk@lsc.co.uk Internet: http://www.lsc.co.uk/
<http://www.lsc.co.uk/>
*
************************************************************************
*
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
> [ mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil
<mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil> ]
> Sent: 20 July 2001 04:31
> To: 'matthew.r.west@is.shell.com '; 'shams@pnu.ac.ir ';
> 'michael.f.uschold@boeing.com '; 'mcdavid@us.ibm.com ';
> 'rekent@ontologos.org '; 'phil.jackson@computer.org ';
> 'cassidy@micra.com '; 'zarri@ivry.cnrs.fr '; 'phayes@ai.uwf.edu ';
> Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I; 'Graham.Horn@aihw.gov.au ';
> 'fgm@fla.fujitsu.com '; 'martin_king@uk.ibm.com ';
> 'sofia@gia.ist.utl.pt
> '; 'fnc@mitre.org '; 'chris.angus@kalido.com '; 'tmk@lsc.co.uk ';
> 'john.r.velman@boeing.com '; 'iniles@teknowledge.com ';
> 'tinwisle@bloomington.in.us '; 'piph@erols.com '; 'jawbrey@oakland.edu
> '; 'kath@umod.kiev.ua '; 'jdickert@dtic.mil ';
> 'jtonkel@earthlink.net ';
> 'chris_partridge@csi.com '; 'frank@farance.com '; 'bordogna@tin.it ';
> 'stborgo@indiana.edu '; 'jhalcomb@teknowledge.com ';
> 'miz@ei.sanken.osaka-u.ac.jp '; 'werner@landc.be ';
> 'gangemi@itbm.rm.cnr.it '; 'skydog@pacbell.net '; 'lee@textwise.com ';
> 'apease@teknowledge.com '; 'Nicola.Guarino@ladseb.pd.cnr.it ';
> 'wburkett@pdit.com '
> Subject: SUO E-mail Ballot -- Please Acknowledge receipt
>
>
> 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
<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
>
>