SUO: Re: SUO Compatible Axiom Register (SCAR)
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Pat Hayes wrote:
>
> > [Switch] A conforming whatever-it-is must buy SUO-KIF.
> >
> > I know I'm slow, but even I begin to get the inkling
> > that the unenforcable semantic clause is yet another
> > wooden horse for the iron-clad syntactic riders that
> > are needed for brand name invincibility to ride thru
> > the gates like Gates.
>
> As usual, I don't really know what Jon is talking about, but he seems to be
> implying that a reference to SUO-KIF is intended as a marketing strategy (?).
>
> I assure you, Jon, that anything I work on will be open source
> and completely available for public use with no strings or fees
> attached, and no bait-and-switch tactics involved. The point is
> only that if, as seems to me to be unavoidable, conformance is
> going to be described in terms of consistency, then one has to
> provide an operational definition of the sense of consistency
> intended, and I see no other way of doing that, in practice,
> than by referring to some machine-parsable formalism. Since
> the SUMO uses SUO-KIF, and since SUO-KIF is being redefined
> with the primary goal of using it for the SUO, I assumed it
> would be the formalism of choice. If you would find some
> other formalism more congenial, by all means suggest one.
| Buy. 2.a. to obtain in exchange for something often at a sacrifice,
| <they 'bought' peace with their freedom>.
| 5. accept, believe, <I don't 'buy' that hooey>
| ref. Webster's New "Collegiate Axiom Register" (CAR).
I can still remember the first time that a person on this list
insulted my intelligence with that line. I have said time and
time again that I consider any language, natural or artificial,
to be a living entity whose future evolution in principle is
something that I cannot judge, but only indirectly in terms
of the character, flexible or doctrinaire, of its present
"maintaining body". When a salesperson sells me a new car,
a new piece of hardware/software, or a brand new ontology,
and says "don't worry about all of the blatant defects --
we stand behind our product and service what we sell",
then a factor in my "buying" decision will rationally
be my estimate of the character of that salesperson.
As it stands, I ain't buyin' it.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤