SUO: Re: Industry takeover
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