SUO: Re: Consensus?
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUO WG,
I have been looking at all three proposals again,
and I find the incompatibilities too radical for
words. I would like to suggest a strategy for
moving the project forward, independently of
whatever official status these or any other
potentials have at a given moment in time.
Let each conributor to the possible merger
first index each of their terms with the
name of the group, for example, giving
"Set_IFF", "Set_OC", "Set_SUMO", etc.
for their corresponding concepts of
a set. This would facilitate the
formation of "disagreement sets"
as used in standard unification
algorithms, though, of course,
only in a rough way at first.
The axioms or comments for
the several concepts could
then be hung on the lattice
with glee, and if any of them
turn out to be coincident, that
would be just wonderful, even if
purely coincidental, but hanging on
to the indices would also leave room
for future extensions by other parties.
Mathematicinas and others have coped with a similar situation
for many years now, for instance, implicitly dealing with
Set_Naive, Set_Axiomatic, and within the latter class,
Set_HBvNG, Set_ZF, and several others. Of course,
this was handeled informally, in a context-wise,
discourse-wise way, and that is not a dodge
that we can get away with as we formalize
concepts in a computable fashion.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o