RE: SUO: 2000-7-26 example
John,
I am a little surprised at you agreeing to Adam Pease with your comment that
"anyone who proposes to make a major change ... has to find the resources to
do so".
This seems to be implying that standards are bought - whoever has the
funding writes the standard. In this case maybe we should rename the SUMO
the TF (Teknowledge Funded) UMO.
I am sure that this is not what IEEE is intended to do.
It seems to me that experts (and others) offer their opinions.
Where a number of experts agree that a point is important (as is the case
here) - this is noted and discussion is started on how to action it. Tim
King's suggestion of an issues list would be useful here. If finding
resources is identified as a problem, then a discussion should take place on
how to resolve it.
To attempt to suggestion that an expert's opinion is not relevant because
that expert cannot provide resources to action it seems a VERY odd way of
approaching standardization. Perhaps this is a capitalist's version of
Stalin's approach to truth.
I note in passing that this highlights Lee Auspitz's point about the
importance of transparency of funding. The group have agreed on a goal
described in the PAR. If, as implied by Adam's original note Teknowledge's
funding is being applied to a different goal then they should make this
clear - particularly with the level of volunteer effort.
Regards,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of John
F. Sowa
Sent: 28 August 2001 01:28
To: Adam Pease
Cc: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK; Yang Yun;
standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org; phayes@ai.uwf.edu
Subject: 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