Re: SUO: Re: Industry takeover
John,
Good point. Togetherness would be better. It's just clear to me that
after 2.5 years in this group that it may be harder than we thought. How
about adding a line to each charter that
"The standards group expects to cooperate closely with [IEEE P1600.1|IEEEP
YYYY.Z] in later stages of the project in hopes of achieving a standard
that addresses both multiple theory mapping and particular instantiated
theories."
Adam
At 09:23 AM 5/1/2003 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
>Adam,
>
>Your suggestions for updating the charter are
>fine with me.
>
>And I realize that the people who are designing
>the IF framework and the people who are developing
>the content that will be managed by the framework
>have different talents and interests.
>
>But the people who use the ontologies will (or at
>least should) see a single system that uses tools
>based on the theory to manage the content. That
>is why it is essential to have some coordination
>between them.
>
>It is not necessary for these groups to work
>together on a day-to-day basis, but it is essential
>that they recognize one another's existence and
>make a commitment on working toward common goals.
>That is why we need a motion that says, in effect,
>"these people promise to work toward a common goal."
>
>The last thing the SUO should endorse are three
>independent projects. The major reason for a
>standards effort is to enable different groups
>to work together. If the standards developers
>themselves cannot work together, or at least
>cooperate in some way, then the SUO is useless.
>The three groups can stay home and work alone
>in their own little cubbyholes.
>
>If you can find a better way of wording a motion
>that promotes cooperation, then please suggest it.
>
>John
>