Re: SUO: single vs. multiple ontology standard
Pat,
Perhaps that is a good reason for reconsidering the vote on SUMO.
Pat Hayes wrote:
JS>Bottom line: There is simply no reason to separate the two
>>efforts, as Adam has suggested. The best approach is to
>>combine them.
PH> Well, there *is* a reason, though it is managerial rather than
> technical. Adam is in control of the SUMO effort, this being done at
> Teknowledge under his direct management; and Adam is quite unwilling
> to either adopt any other methodology or to work in cooperation with
> anyone who is using one. He is also, it seems, incapable of
> understanding the issues that motivate those who are inclined towards
> a modular approach, which does not inspire a great deal of confidence
> in anyone who might be inclined to work with him. Taken together,
> these seems to me to amount to an insurmountable barrier to a
> combined effort, as indeed Adam has himself suggested.
Since you and I both voted against making SUMO a candidate for an
SUO standard, we seem to be disqualified from submitting a motion
to reconsider the vote on SUMO.
However, I voted in favor of IFF. Perhaps if somebody who voted
in favor of SUMO as a candidate standard wanted to submit a motion
to reconsider SUMO, I would be willing to submit a motion to
reconsider IFF. Then we could jointly propose a new candidate
project along the following lines:
1. Adopt the current SUMO ontology as a resource.
2. Adopt whatever Cycorp decides to contribute as a resource
(provided that Cycorp releases it under a license that is
appropriate to the bylaws of the IEEE procedures for standards).
3. Adopt IFF as a resource.
4. Modularize whatever is appropriate from #1 and #2 into a
collection of starting modules and adopt whatever is
appropriate from #3 as a basis for developing a methodology
for organizing and combining modules along the lines that
have been discussed on SUO list.
John Sowa