RE: SUO: Almost-Final Ballot Questions
Dear Colleagues,
All this thinking about conformance is good. But I don't recall
conformance ever being mentioned in a standards development proposal,
which is what these motions are really about.
The kind of thing that is more usual is a business case. Why would
people support and perhaps work on these standards? How will they and
their organisations benefit when the standards are in place?
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
> Sent: 21 May 2003 21:57
> To: sowa
> Cc: Frank Farance; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: SUO: Almost-Final Ballot Questions
>
>
>
> John,
> A formal conformance section for the IFF motion would be a
> good idea too.
>
> Adam
>
> At 12:03 PM 5/21/2003 -0400, sowa wrote:
> >Adam,
> >
> >But that is only designed for SUMO, which is a content
> >module:
> >
> >>The revised motion includes the reference to the SUMO
> > > conformance clause, which is needed in a standards proposal,
> > > as you point out.
> >
> >The purpose of the joint motion is to define the formats and
> >interfaces that specify conformance for all content, including
> >SUMO, OpenCyc, and anything else that may be proposed.
> >
> >John
> >
>
>