Re: SUO: Vote 2001-02: IFF Foundation Ontology
I think the philosophy of IFF looks wonderful and I believe such a
meta-system contributes a lot to mediation of multiple ontologies, but
it is hard for me to properly evaluate it.
In spite of that I abstain, I believe it is worthwhile for us to move
towards building "plans of architect(see below)" rather than rapid
prototype building. Such plans would specify some of the promising
directions to go to make it happen the case where IFF ontology could
> Adam is acting like a building contractor who has told his crew
> to get busy laying the foundation and building the superstructure,
> while people like Pat H., Chris P., Robert K., and me are trying
> to tell him that the architect hasn't finished drawing up the plans.
> Then Adam responds to our comments by asking us to point out any
> cracks or splinters in what his crew is building.
> There is a serious breakdown in communication.
> John Sowa
On Thu, 9 Aug 2001 22:46:53 -0400
"Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I" <James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil> wrote:
> ATTN Voting Members of the SUO WG,
> 1. Please immediately acknowledge receipt of this email letter ballot. If I
> do not receive such acknowledgement within 5 days, I will contact you again.
> We want to make sure all voting members receive this ballot.
> 2. This message is to ballot the question, as proposed by Robert Kent:
> "Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working Group commence work
> on the IFF Foundation Ontology version 1.0 [July 20, 2001] posted at
> http://suo.ieee.org/Kent-IFF.pdf, with the intent of developing it into the
> final SUO document?
> Note 1: See the background information below for more details.
> Note 2: This may be one of several candidate documents, any one of which may
> become the final SUO document, or may be combined and aligned into the final
> SUO document via the consensus building process. No one candidate document
> will have preferential status relative to the others."
> 3. By Thursday, August 30, 2001, please vote YES (comments optional),
> NO(comments required), or ABSTAIN (comments optional). Votes should be sent
> directly to me (to reduce list traffic), but please post your comments
> directly to the list so they have a chance to be resolved. Comments sent to
> me will be forwarded to the SUO list.
> 4. Per the SUO Chair's interpretation of Robert's Rules of Order (with input
> from members of the SUO P&P Subgroup), the following items will be followed:
> 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
> acknowledged 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. None of these items are considered to be changes to existing
> policies and procedures, only interpretations.
> 5. Non-voting participants are welcome to express opinions and submit
> comments to the SUO list.
> 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
Best wishes, Riichiro Mizoguchi
The Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research, Osaka University
8-1 Mihogaoka, Ibaraki, Osaka, 567-0047 Japan
Phone: +81-6-6879-8415, 2125
Fax: +81-6-6879-2126(Urgent) +81-6-6879-2123(for large volume)