SUO: The SUMO is not a Starter Document

[Robert Spillers <skydog@pacbell.net>]

Title:

John,
Your motion (#2) says 
>       1. The standard shall be based on the contributions of three  SUO
> candidate projects:  IFF, OpenCyc, and SUMO.
A contribution is different from a starter document and is specifically listed
in a different section of the SUO web page.

Teknowledge's motion states their position differently as "the intent of developing it into a final SUO document",
and separately mentions their " further
intent to collaborate" on a joint library of modules.

>     "Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working Group
> commence work on the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO) version 1.52
> [April 25, 2003] posted at: 
> <http://ontology.teknowledge.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/SUO/Merge.
> txt?rev=1.49&content-type=text/plain>  (containing the ontology) and
> http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/FormalSUOdraft.rtf>
> (containing the text of the formal standards proposal) with the intent of
> developing it into a final SUO document.  There is further intent to 
> collaborate with the SUO group working on a joint library of modules
> project.

Since these categories are separate and Teknowledge's motion (#1) was defeated, 
SUMO and OpenCyc are properly listed as contributions and IFF as a starter
document.  As your motion states its purpose is to focus on "ontology specification and registration" using the
contributions of IFF, OpenCyc and SUMO as distinct from Teknowledge's purpose
of becoming "a final SUO document".

I have previously stated my opinion that the SUO should accept all documents
offered without distinction and without any being privileged.  Since we do
maintain distinctions and privilege SUMO is not entitled to the status of
a "Starter Document".

It is curious that a recent change shows SUMO as a Starter Document while
OpenCyc is not   Perhaps it is not so curious considering that Adam Pease
is the web master.

Bob


John F. Sowa wrote:
>  
> Folks, 
>  
> Adam Pease asked me to state my position on the following 
> statement: 
>  
> "SUMO is now officially recognized as a starting candidate" 
>  
> Since I believe that statement is implied by motion #2, 
> which passed under any interpretation of the voting rules, 
> I agree that statement is true -- independently of how 
> the rules may be interpreted with regard to motion #1. 
>  
> I also believe that OpenCyc is officially recognized as 
> a starting candidate, as a result of the vote on motion #2. 
>  
> IFF had previously been recognized as a starting candidate, 
> and motion #2 has not changed its status. 
>  
> John Sowa 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>