SUO: Recommendation
I voted NO on question (#1) and YES on question (#2).
My reasons are simple. Although I am skeptical about this group's
ability to create a standard upper ontology, I think there have been
some useful discussions and many serious (along with frivolous) issues
have been aired. However useful or useless the product of this effort
may be, Matthew West has pointed out that we are a very long way from
the end. It seems to me that John Sowa's proposal (#2) is reasonable
and allows many participants to work within its framework. How
effective it might be remains to be seen, but it does no harm that I can
see.
Teknowledge's motion (#1) seeks a privileged place for its product
(SUMO) even though it is included in John's motion (#2) along with IFF
and OpenCyc.. This seems both unnecessary and unbecoming. SUMO was
previously defeated (August of 2001) in large measure because of this
seeking of privilege on their part.. I am not opposed to SUMO per se,
but I am opposed to any appearance of primacy or exclusiveness. (I did
vote for SUMO as part of #2).
I recommend to the SUO WG voting members that they vote NO on Question
#1 and YES on Question #2
If you have not voted I urge you to do so. If you wish to change a vote
previously submitted, you may do so until the close of the ballot
period.- midnight EDT on 06/13/03.
Bob Spillers
.