SUO: Re: Industry takeover
John,
I'm really at a loss. All we have to do is propose something that meets
the charter, not justify the charter itself at this point. So I guess we
have to leave that issue unresolved.
You'd like SUMO to collaborate in some way with IFF. That's fine. But
even putting aside for the moment whether I think that's a good idea,
you've got to provide some concrete example of what you want us to do. I
really have no idea concretely how to begin to do what you ask. Could you
do the first day of work on what you'd like to see us do so we'd have a
model to follow?
Adam
At 04:55 PM 4/29/2003 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
>Adam,
>
>You can't have it both ways. You are asking for
>a very high level of proof for everybody except
>yourself.
>
> > The claim of the value of an upper ontology is not
> > part of the debate. To create one is the charter
> > of the group, and that charter is not exclusive to
> > commercial applications. The only issue is which
> > one (or several) to settle on.
>
>The charter is for the SUO to produce an upper
>ontology that is presumably good for its purpose,
>which is to support applications. And a research
>effort is not an application unless and until it
>has been successfully deployed.
>
> > I don't recall making any claims in line with #1
> > or #2 below.
>
>In other words, you are saying that the IEEE is
>expected to approve an ontology as a standard
>without seeing any successful applications of it?
>
>You have an untried and untested ontology, you don't
>believe it has to show successful applications before
>it is approved as a standard, but you are still
>refusing to cooperate with another SUO project
>until the developers give an ironclad proof
>that it works.
>
>All we're saying is that we are willing to give
>you the benefit of the doubt in helping to develop
>your still untested technology provided that you
>give other people the benefit of the doubt and
>collaborate with their efforts.
>
>Remember that the joint motion does not commit the
>SUO committee or the IEEE to approve any draft
>standard that arises from the project. It only says
>that we believe it is desirable to initiate a project
>in which all three collaborate. If people make a good
>effort to try, but don't succeed in using everything
>that the three groups develop, then the part that is
>unused or unusable won't go into a final standard.
>
>As I said before, I would be happy to revise the joint
>motion in order to make it acceptable to everybody.
>We can start with projects that are still untested
>and test them as we go along.
>
>John