| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Whoa! Hang on ... this sounds horribly as if we are about to stand back and allow everyone to go off and make their own standard. If we create enough PARs we will be able to 100% concensus in each working group. We will have products with neither sufficient momentum nor sufficient quality of technical input to serve the marketplace. I urge the Chairman to resist this prospect. I do not see that we are at the point of needing to create a second PAR; we have barely begun to vote on the issues that surround the development of the technical approach. I believe that the 'modularists' should be given rein to vote and comment along the lines that they have been expressing; the 'singlists' can counter in the ways that we have already agreed are part of the ballot and review cycle.
Cheers,
Tim.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
> Sent: 13 September 2001 15:11
> To: jim.s3@juno.com; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: SUO: RE: Re: single vs. multiple ontology standard
>
>
>
> Jim,
> I agree. The arguments have reached an impasse. I think
> both arguments
> have some validity but there's no way to prove either other than by
> creating a proposal that embodies each and seeing whether it is
> accepted. I would prefer that we split into two PARs so that
> proponents of
> each approach can pursue them without being shot down by
> opponents of each
> respective approach.
> In order to help us move on, I'll decline to respond to
> further messages
> on this topic unless we talk about creating an additional PAR.
>
> Adam
>
> At 10:27 PM 9/12/2001 -0400, jim.s3@juno.com wrote:
>
> >All,
> >
> > I'm not taking sides, but this is how I view this argument.
> >
> > If approach X is thoroughly developed and nobody
> finds a use for
> >it, it will not have the votes to pass balloting. If it
> does find users,
> >they will join the WG and it will have enough votes.
> >
> > They same is true for the other approach.
> >
> > Or, if both find users, we form another PAR and publish two
> >standards. If neither gains a user base, we produce no standard.
> >
> > I suggest we agree to disagree and each move on to
> developing the
> >approach we believe in.
> >
> >Jim Schoening