SUO: Re: RE: Conformance
From: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>
> > I agree with a good number of your points, including your
> > impression that the SUO work is mostly a "posh dictionary"
> > (in standards terms: a registry of axioms).
>
> MW: If others agree with this too, that would be significant.
For what it's worth (I'm not a voting member) I agree with this too. Except
what does 'posh' mean in this context ?
Modules could be uploaded and registered along with KIF axioms stating their
dependencies to other modules. Then we could add some kind of trust
annotation system for members. Also automated agents could be employed to
search for inconsistencies and publish those as well. Then SUO would become
more of a continual process, rather than this show stopper kind of
parliamentary procedure.
SWAG had similar aspirations (see URL below). If SUO doesn't want to adopt
this approach, perhaps we could revitalize SWAG to achieve those same goals.
http://purl.org/swag/
Seth Russell