Re: SUO: Re: The SUMO is a Starter Document
John,
I disagree with your interpretation. I will of course do whatever the
chair requests in terms of web site updates.
Adam
At 04:38 PM 6/18/2003 -0500, John F. Sowa wrote:
>Adam,
>
>The simple issue is whether SUMO is more privileged than
>OpenCyc. If you will revise the web site to say that there
>are three starter documents -- IFF, SUMO, and OpenCyc --
>then the issue goes away.
>
> > Any starter document has a privileged status over any other document
> >that isn't a starter document. That's how standards progress. This was
> >all discussed at length before. I'm still not clear why you feel that
> >after a vote of approval, it's somehow a priori more virtuous for IFF to
> >have that privileged status and for SUMO not to. We should be able to
> >disagree about the technical merits of each others' beliefs without
> >resorting to an attempt to overturn a clear vote.
>
>Apparently the vote wasn't clear. Many people believed that
>Motion #2 put all three documents into the starter category
>and that Motion #1 was redundant. That point was mentioned
>many times during the discussion, and you never said otherwise.
>
>To avoid any misunderstandings, it is up to you to change
>the web site. If you don't, there is no alternative but to go
>through more rounds of wrangling.
>
>So please update the web site.
>
>John