SUO: SUMO is not a Starter Document
Adam,
I take it that means you will do nothing unless forced to do so.
Bob
Adam Pease wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>