SUO: Consensus?
Pat, Jay, Adam, and Robert,
With the recent flurry of notes, I believe we
can see light at the end of the email tunnel.
1. Pat made the observation that the joint
motion is actually a proposal for a new
ontology, which is based on, but different
from both:
>> The third ontology will have mappings to SUMO and OpenCyc
>> and will present an opportunity to test the utility of
>> the IFF theory for organizing multiple ontologies,
>> and an opportunity for those who would prefer not to
>> use either SUMO or OpenCyc to try to create something
>> better than either (whether better for some specific
>> purpose or better in being able to map more precisely
>> to more ontologies).
>
>
2. Jay supported that idea and suggested that we call it
SUM -- Standard Upper Meta-ontology. But we should
probably get the letter L in there for "Library".
We can leave that as a challenge for the acronym
hackers.
3. Then Adam proposed that we all support joint motion
as well as the SUMO motion, but if so, I suggest we
also ask John D. to reintroduce the OpenCyc motion:
> If this is the intent, and you'll vote for the
> SUMO motion as well as the combined motion, then
> I would be willing to support the combined motion
> also, but only if you'll also endorse the SUMO motion.
4. Finally, Robert strongly endorsed the joint motion
and pledged to work closely with both the SUMO and
OpenCyc groups.
Summary: Let's take advantage of this willingness
to cooperate by all of us agreeing to support three
motions -- one for OpenCyc, one for SUMO, and one for
the joint library using a methodology based on IFF.
Then all three candidate projects (OpenCyc, SUMO,
and IFF) would have equal status, and they would all
be partners in developing a joint library of modules.
John Sowa