Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

SUO: RE: Foundations for ontology




Sorry Pat, 
	.		I missed out a word in my previous e­mail. It was
meant to have read , "I wish I could spend MORE time digesting the work you
have done"

	.	Further comments interspersed below, prefaced  "GH>	".



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:	pat hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu]
Sent:	Wednesday, 15 August 2001 4:18
To:	Horn, Graham
Cc:	standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject:	RE: Foundations for ontology

>	.	I wish I could spend MORE time digesting the work you have
done.
>It is evidently significant and perspicacious.
>
>	.	Might I suggest you put a motion to the SUO group (or a
>modification to an existing one) for us to consider.

Why on earth do you need someone to 'put a motion' in order to start
considering something? Does your brain only work in committee mode?

GH>	Because I don't pretend to have a crystal clear interpretation of
John's intentions from a set of slides. I did NOT attend the presentations,
so cannot pretend to know what was said. 

GH>	John has done the research, and so should be best placed to put the
appropriate wording to a motion based on it. We have seen plenty of
bickering over wording of motions, precisely because wordings impact on the
precise consequences. 

GH>	I'd have thought that would be obvious from the extensive numbers of
misunderstandings that we have all witnessed in the time this list has been
in operation. 
>
>	.	What do others think?
>

More thought and less pseudo-administrative BS would make this list a lot
more valuable. 

GH>	Actually, I have the impression the "thought" has exceeded the
administrative postings by around two orders of magnitude. What we seriously
lack is an adequate administrative structure to focus the "thought"s. 

GH>	At present I see the situation as akin to a random crowd milling
around, knowing roughly what they want, but largely not knowing what to do
to get it. I think John's latest post has much the same thrust. 

Pat Hayes

---------------------------------------------------------------------
(650)859 6569 w
(650)494 3973 h (until September)
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes