SUO: RE: Re: The SUMO is a Starter Document
Dear Adam,
It would be better to say it was a recognised piece of work than
that it was privelidged.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
> Sent: 18 June 2003 19:58
> To: sowa@bestweb.net; Robert Spillers;
> standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: SUO: Re: The SUMO is a Starter Document
>
>
>
> John,
> 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.
> Anyway, I'll do my best to avoid further discussion on
> this topic and
> leave the resolution to the various concerned parties.
>
> Adam
>
> At 02:45 PM 6/18/2003 -0500, John F. Sowa wrote:
> >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
>
>