Re: SUO: AW: Resolution of Ballot Comments
A couple of comments on your comments:
PM> CycL is not that different from the forming CL standards or SKIF.
> But what's more, I understand Pierre to be saying that the proper
> formal framework for content specification should itself be a subject
> of this WG's deliberation, not the starting condition -- to which I
> also strongly agree.
I agree also. And the fact that CycL is similar to the proposed CL
standard is a good reason for considering the inclusion of CycL or
some modified variant of it in the CL framework. Since the CL
framework does allow a great deal of flexibility, it may be possible
to define everything that is present in CycL in terms of the CL
semantics. And if there are features of CycL that cannot be defined
in terms of the current version of CL, then that would be a good reason
for extending or revising the CL proposals before they are finalized.
PM> I have nothing against merging, but I don't see how a "desire to
> merge" should be made a condition of _initiating_ work on a proposal.
> _I_ understood standard proposals before this WG _not_ to be
> inherently in competition. So if we are not in an elimination game,
> seems to me we should also allow, at the outset, for the theoretical
> possibility of non-merged multiple options.
I agree. And the proposed registry with a lattice-based organization
would provide a framework in which both OpenCyc and SUMO could co-exist
in harmony. Both of them could be present in the registry as complete
modules. But the submodules from which they were derived could also
exist in the same registry. Then users would have the following
1. Adopt OpenCyc as a foundation to which they might add modules
from SUMO or other components in the registry.
2. Adopt SUMO as a foundation to which they might add modules
from OpenCyc or other components.
3. Design their own foundation to which they might add some selection
of modules from SUMO, OpenCyc, or other components.
In all these selections, the operators of IFF would be important
for determining how the modules would be combined and how possible
inconconsistencies could be detected and avoided.
But I agree that the details of how those operations would be performed
need not be specified in the proposed ballot. That is something for
the SUO committee to determine.