SUO: Re: The SUMO is not a Starter Document
Adam,
I believed that motion #1 was subsumed by motion #2, which
put SUMO and OpenCyc on an equal footing. I repeated that
point many times.
If I was wrong in that perception, then you should have made
it clear that motion #1 put SUMO in a more privileged position
than OpenCyc.
And I was not the only one who failed to see that you intended
your motion to give SUMO a privileged position. Bob Spillers,
who has been very attentive to legal points, also failed to
notice the fine print in your motion. I'm sure that most of
the people who voted for motion #1 were also unaware of your
intent.
> Your statement about this being a "misunderstanding" seems
>disingenuous to me. We agreed to support each other's motions,
> no more, no less. Now you've reneged on that agreement.
I voted for motion #1. I fulfilled my part of the agreement.
Now you are claiming that SUMO has a higher status than
OpenCyc. That was certainly not part of the agreement.
> I'm not sure why you feel it's somehow procedurally virtuous
> for IFF to be an approved starter document but not for other
> proposals to be so approved.
I thought that my motion put IFF, SUMO, and OpenCyc on an
equal footing. But you have taken it upon yourself to tell
the public that SUMO has a higher status than OpenCyc.
Proposal: If you change the web site to state that there
are three approved starter documents, IFF, SUMO, and OpenCyc,
then I will drop the issue.
But I most definitely will not accept any privileged status
for SUMO ahead of OpenCyc.
John