Re: SUO: Re: Consensus?
Robert,
I'd be happy to collaborate, and happy to add such a sentence to the
motion, provided that it doesn't restart the clock on the process of
bringing the motion to a vote.
Adam
At 03:34 PM 5/15/2003 -0700, Robert E. Kent wrote:
>John,
>
>This sounds good to me also.
>
>One question though. Can we request that Adam and John D. put in the SUMO
>and OpenCyc motions a statement that the respective groups will collaborate
>with the group working on the joint library of modules project? In that way
>the various motions are connected to each other.
>
>Robert
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
>To: "Robert E. Kent" <rekent@ontologos.org>; "Adam Pease"
><apease@ks.teknowledge.com>; "SUO" <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>;
>"Patrick Cassidy" <pcassidy@bellatlantic.net>; "Jay Halcomb"
><jhalcomb8@attbi.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 3:53 PM
>Subject: 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