SUO: Re: SUMO is not a Starter Document
Bob,
Certainly not if I believe it would be wrong.
Adam
At 04:29 PM 6/18/2003 -0700, Robert Spillers wrote:
>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
>>
>>
>
>