SUO: Re: SUO progress report - How to get faster progress
Jim,
. I'm glad to hear there has been progress.
.
. At the current rate, how long should it be before we have something to
vote on as an actual document?
.
. I guess I disagree with you. My feeling is that, if we report progress,
even annually, it would make participants review the effectivenesses of
their various SUO related activities. I feel that would to focus our
attention and energies to the task at hand, and reduce the many peripheral
discussions that consume so much energy.
.
. I feel the energy being expended should be able to progress things far
more rapidly, if only it could be better focused.
.
. I am sceptical as to what proportion of the flow on this site is
currently actually contributing to the tasks at hand.
.
.
.
Cheers
Graham Horn
.
.
.
--- jim.s3@juno.com wrote:
> Graham,
>
> I am not in favor of requiring quarterly reports. Here are a few
> reasons.
>
> a. Had we required them for the past two years, I doubt either
> starter document would be any further along.
>
> b. This is a volunteer model. I don't feel volunteers can or
> should require other volunteers report to them.
>
> c. To the degree a document is making progess, those involved
> will know the status and don't need a report.
>
> Now, if anyone wants to volunteer to do such reports, go for it.
>
> Jim Schoening
>
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2002 22:39:30 +1000 (EST) =?iso-8859-1?q?Kestrel?=
> <kestrela4@yahoo.com.au> writes:
> >
> > Jim et al,
> > . Would there be any merit in having a regular (say
> > quarterly) progress
> > report, so that others can be advised of what is being achieved each
> > period?
> > .
> > . I feel it could be valuable if such a report would state as
> > clearly as
> > possible tangible products and achievements made in the reporting
> > period,
> > even if it's to include things like:
> > .
> > o "the principle, that ........, was verified / refuted".
> > .
> > o "it was demonstrated/proven that ........ produces
> > ........".
> > .
> > o "the 'name x' module / sub-sub-sub-system of product 'name
> > y', which has
> > the role/function of ......, was completed.
> > .
> > . Perhaps a representrative from each activity could produce
> > input from
> > that group. By combining the reports, overall progress could be more
> > readily assessed, and more cross-fertilisation could occur. It seems
> > to me
> > this could be to everyones' benefit.
> > .
> > . I only suggested a quarterly frequency, because there has
> > been a
> > perspective that the whole development project shouldn't take very
> > long,
> > though I recognise it has already taken quite a while. What would be
> > the
> > best reporting frequency?
> > .
> > . I feel one benefit could be the provision of actual
> > milestones of which
> > is achieved. Something arising out of that could be a valuable
> > insight into
> > what this rather exploratory project turns out to entail.
> > .
> > . For people to consider.
> > .
> > .
> > Cheers
> > Graham Horn
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > --- jim.s3@juno.com wrote: >
> > > Adam,
> > >
> > > You wrote:
> > >
> > > > Let me rephrase my statement then simply as a request that we
> > split
> > > off the language issue into a separate PAR.
> > >
> > > This is an option that needs considerable discussion, so
> > it is
> > > best held until after the group decides if it wants to work on the
> > Cyc
> > > items.
> > >
> > > Jim Schoening
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Adam
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >Jim
> > > > >
> > > > >On Sat, 25 May 2002 08:22:14 -0700 Adam Pease
> > > > <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>
> > > > >writes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jim,
> > > > > > In my view, the OpenCyc ontology certainly addresses the
> > PAR,
> > > > but
> > > > > > CycL
> > > > > > and CycML do not. They are simply related material that
> > > > supports
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > ontology, much in the same way SUMO is stated in SUO-KIF and
> > has
> > > > a
> > > > > > translation to DAML. Standardizing CycL or CycML would be
> > > > separate
> > > > > >
> > > > > > projects under separate PARs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Adam
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >________________________________________________________________
> > > > >GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> > > > >Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> > > > >Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
> > > > >http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
> > > >
> > > > Adam Pease
> > > > Teknowledge
> > > > (650) 424-0500 x571
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________________________________________
> > > GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> > > Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> > > Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
> > > http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
> >
> > =====
> > Graham Horn
> > .
> > Ph: (02) 6260.5260 (messages checked daily)
> > or: (02) 624.77382 (best after 9pm any day)
> > .
> > Message checked on this address weekly.
> >
> > http://www.sold.com.au - The Sold.com.au Big Brand Sale
> > - New PCs, notebooks, digital cameras, phones and more ... Sale ends
> > June 12
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
=====
Graham Horn
.
Ph: (02) 6260.5260 (messages checked daily)
or: (02) 624.77382 (best after 9pm any day)
.
Message checked on this address weekly.
http://www.sold.com.au - The Sold.com.au Big Brand Sale
- New PCs, notebooks, digital cameras, phones and more ... Sale ends June 12