RE: SUO: 2000-7-26 example
John,
-----Original Message-----
From: sowa@bestweb.net [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
Sent: 30 August 2001 12:53
To: mail@ChrisPartridge.net
Cc: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK; Yang Yun;
standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org; phayes@ai.uwf.edu; Adam Pease; Josiah Lee
Auspitz
Subject: Re: SUO: 2000-7-26 example
Chris,
I was not stating what I wished, but what the SUO happens to be.
CP> I guessed as much - but I am surprised that the IEEE sanctions this. I
would have thought that it did not.
Regards,
Chris
Chris Partridge wrote:
> 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".
I don't have the resources that Teknowledge has, and I don't know
of any other contributor to SUO who does. If I make a proposal
that Adam doesn't want to implement, I have no way to force him.
> 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 believe that is what Bob Spillers and Lee Auspitz were saying,
but not in a very tactful way.
> 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.
We have raised the question of resources many times, and the answer
that has been given, either explicitly or implicitly, is that anybody
who wants to participate in the SUO has to find their own resources.
Under that policy the people who have the most resources are the ones
who are going to do what they want to do.
> To attempt to suggest 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.
Yes, I would agree.
> 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.
I agree. I would like to know the answer to Lee's question about
who is receiving what funding to work on the SUO. That information
would help us to interpret how and why people are voting the way
they do. But so far, nobody is telling us where their monetary
interests happen to lie.
And by the way, I am not blaming Teknowledge. They are a business
that has to find a way to stay in business. But I agree that all
SUO participants should have the information about which groups are
getting funding from the same source. Under the usual policies of
the standards organizations, all participants who represent a
single funding agency get only one vote.
John Sowa