SUO: Motion 1 (SUMO) and Motion 2 (IFF/Combined) both passed
Bob,
This is very disappointing. SUMO passed with a clear majority, as did
John Sowa's motion. SUMO passed on the last vote as well, but through a
strange process you managed to get the voting rules changed after the vote,
so that people who voted "abstain" had their votes counted as "no"
votes. This time we even followed your process and now you're attempting
to change the rules again.
We should also note that the first IFF vote, which you have not
challenged after nearly two years, also fails by your current
interpretation. On the vote that was taken 31 Aug 01 there were 49 voting
members the results were YES = 21, NO = 6 and ABSTAIN = 9. Under your
interpretation, that would mean it failed since 21 < 49/2. Of course,
that's spurious, and it passed, as did both recent votes.
Rather than engaging in maneuvering about voting rules, why not work on
a starter document that you believe in, and write some standards
words? Surely a positive approach would be a better use of everyone's
energies, wouldn't it?
Adam
At 03:44 AM 6/18/2003 -0700, Robert Spillers wrote:
>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/%7Echeckout%7E/SUO/Merge>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>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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>