Re: SUO: 2000-7-26 example
Adam,
I agree that anyone who proposes to make a major change, such as
develop a methodology for SUO, to merge IFF and SUMO, or many
other desirable tasks, has to find the resources to do so.
At the moment, I have many other projects to do, and no time or
funding to take on another one. So I will have to pass on the
project of making SUMO into what I believe meets the minimum
requirements for being an acceptable group effort.
Some comments:
> Well, sure methodology is important, but we're not producing a methodology
> as the standard.
That is not what SUMO is doing, and that is why I voted against
it as a candidate direction for the SUO. I voted for SUMO as a
working document, because I believe that it is an interesting
exercise. But without a suitable methodology, it will never
be anything more than an interesting exercise.
> Even if we accept that the methodology must be done
> first, at some point, one still has to specify terms and axioms.
That is true. But when you are going in the wrong direction,
the faster you go, the farther you are from the goal.
> Anyway, I
> fear we've been over that ground before.
Indeed we have. And the fact that you haven't acknowledged
the need for a suitable methodology is why I voted against
making SUMO into a candidate for a standard.
John Sowa