SUO: RE: Re: The SUMO is not a Starter Document
Jim, John and Adam,
For me, the vote results in equal status for IFF, SUMO, and OpenCyc as stated in motion #2. Motion #1 was irrelevant with the approval of #2. Had motion #2 failed, then indeed only IFF and SUMO would be the basis for proceeding. I can not even find an OpenCyc link on the web site and I'm beginning to feel like something is amiss with the administration of this effort.
Jim, please add OpenCyc to the starter document list as approved in motion #2.
Cheers,
Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 1:31 PM
To: Adam Pease; sowa@bestweb.net; Robert Spillers;
standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: SUO: Re: The SUMO is not a Starter Document
Adam,
I am sorry, but I misunderstood your intent. I was happy to
endorse SUMO as a candidate on the same footing as OpenCyc,
but not as something with higher status than OpenCyc.
> I'm disappointed in your note, and feel that you've reneged
> on our agreement to support each other's motions.
I am extremely disappointed that you have posted a statement
that implies SUMO has a more privileged status than OpenCyc.
If I had understood that to be your position, I would never
have voted for motion #1 and I would have insisted that we
have a vote to give OpenCyc the same status.
> Both votes passed, according to the rules clearly stated by
> the chair. We should be able to disagree about the technical
> merits of each other's proposals without engaging in this
> sort of maneuvering.
The last thing I want is more procedural maneuvering, and I
am very disappointed that you have posted a statement that
implies that SUMO has higher status than OpenCyc.
Please remove that statement from the web site ASAP.
Otherwise, I believe that there are two options:
1. Go through more wrangling with appeals.
2. Have another vote to clarify the point that
SUMO and OpenCyc have equal status.
John