SUO: Re: The SUMO is not a Starter Document
Bob,
I agree with your analysis.
RS> 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".
Yes. I agreed to vote for motion #1 in exchange for Adam's
vote on motion #2, but I reject any attempt to place SUMO
in a position that gives it any preference or status that
makes it "more equal" than OpenCyc.
RS> 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".
Yes, I agree.
RS> 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.
I am very much opposed to any status given to SUMO that is
different from the status given to OpenCyc. That statement
on the web site should be changed ASAP.
John