SUO: Voting results
Julian,
Obviously Jim's ruling is controversial and contested. The IEEE is
looking into the matter, but it will be a while until they can devote
the attention necessary to resolve the issue.
Bob
jim.s3@juno.com wrote:
>All,
>
> Julian Fowler asked: "Since there is continuing discussion of the
>status of the SUMO within the SUO activity I request a clarification of
>this from the chair."
>
> The original determination, as posted below, stands.
>
>Jim
>--------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: jim.s3@juno.com
>To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>Cc: jawbrey@oakland.edu
>Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:39:36 -0400
>Subject: SUO: Both Motions Pass
>Message-ID: <20030614.163937.-606831.0.jim.s3@juno.com>
>Reply-To: jim.s3@juno.com
>Received: from mx16.nyc.untd.com (mx16.nyc.untd.com [10.140.24.76])
> by maildeliver26.lax.untd.com with SMTP id AAA9QZFN3AU67QRJ
> for <jim.s3@juno.com> (sender
><owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org>);
> Sat, 14 Jun 2003 14:37:29 -0700 (PST)
>Received: from majordomo2.ieee.org (majordomo2.ieee.org [140.98.193.24])
> by mx16.nyc.untd.com with SMTP id AAA9QZFN2ATKDECJ
> for <jim.s3@juno.com> (sender
><owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org>);
> Sat, 14 Jun 2003 17:37:28 -0400 (EST)
>Received: from majordomo2.ieee.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> by majordomo2.ieee.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id
>h5EKf4wx027100
> for <standard-upper-ontology-resent@majordomo2.ieee.org>; Sat, 14
>Jun 2003 16:41:04 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: (from majordom@localhost)
> by majordomo2.ieee.org (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h5EKf4gQ027099
> for standard-upper-ontology-resent; Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:41:04
>-0400 (EDT)
>X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.33
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=--__JNP_000_0a0d.3491.5572
>Precedence: bulk
>X-Moderator-Address: standard-upper-ontology-approval@majordomo.ieee.org
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0
> tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_JUNO_RCVD,NO_REAL_NAME
> version=2.55-ieee_anti_spam
>X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majordomo@majordomo.ieee.org
>Sender: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
>Return-Path: <owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org>
>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55-ieee_anti_spam
> (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp)
>X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients
> <standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org>
>X-Listname: standard-upper-ontology
>Message-ID: <20030614.163937.-606831.0.jim.s3@juno.com>
>
>SUO Members and Participants,
>
> Both motions pass, per the following formula and numbers, and
>attached spreadsheet. Please send any corrections.
>
> #1: 31(YES) > 16(NO) + 6(ABSTAIN)
>
> #2: 46(YES) > 5(NO) + 2(ABSTAIN)
>
> Congratulations to all who have been working to advance these
>documents. We need to now discuss how to advance them further.
>
> Our thanks should also go to Jon Awbrey who has been working hard
>to update the contact information on our growing number of members, plus
>his tabulation of this ballot.
>
>Jim Schoening
>-------------------------------------------
>
>
>Jim,
>
>Here is the final spreadsheet,
>with Valente substracted and
>the other two added.
>
>I count:
>
>Eligible Voters: 79
>Acknowledgements: 71
>Ballots Cast: 53
>
>Question 1, Abstain: 6
>Question 1, No: 16
>Question 1, Yes: 31
>
>Question 2, Abstain: 2
>Question 2, No: 5
>Question 2, Yes: 46
>
>Jon Awbrey
>
>o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>===========Copy of Ballot=====================
>ATTN Voting Members of IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working
>Group:
>
>1. Please vote on the below two questions. Votes may be in the form of
>YES, NO, or ABSTAIN. The motion will pass if both (a majority of voting
>members either vote or acknowledge receipt of the ballot) and (YES votes
>are greater than [NO plus ABSTAIN votes]).
>
>2. If you are unsure whether you are a voting member, see the list of
>voting members at http://suo.ieee.org/voting-members.txt.
>
>3. If you choose not to vote, please acknowledge receipt of the ballot.
>
>4. The period for voting will end at midnight EDT on June 13, 2003. If a
>majority of voting members have not yet voted or acknowledged, the chair
>may extend the period for voting and may remind those who have not
>responded.
>
>5. Please email your vote to Jon Awbrey (copied above) and me, but not
>the SUO list, unless you specifically want your vote (and any comments)
>shared with everyone.
>
>Jim Schoening
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>Ballot Question #1:
>
> "Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working Group
>commence work on the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO) version 1.52
>[April 25, 2003] posted at:
><http://ontology.teknowledge.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/SUO/Merge.
>txt?rev=1.49&content-type=text/plain> (containing the ontology) and
>http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/FormalSUOdraft.rtf>
>(containing the text of the formal standards proposal) with the intent of
>developing it into a final SUO document. There is further intent to
>collaborate with the SUO group working on a joint library of modules
>project.
>
>Background: Information which is not part of the motion or proposed
>starter document, but which may be helpful in appreciating its value, is
>as follows. The SUMO was first released on Dec 9, 2000. The first and
>all subsequent revisions have been public releases. SUMO is being used
>by (a small number) of companies and research institutions around the
>world. It has been subject to formal verification by an automated
>theorem prover. It has been divided into 11 modules to simplify reuse.
>SUMO is small enough to be easily learned (approximately 1000 terms, 4000
>axioms, 750 rules) but large enough to cover, at a high level, any domain
>of interest. It is well-axiomatized, including many rules, not just a
>type structure. The language it is written in is defined at
><http://suo.ieee.org/suo-kif.html>. SUMO has been written independently
>of any particular theorem prover and has been used in several different
>systems including LOOM and SNARK. SUMO has also been used in the
>creation of a number of other freely available products, as listed below
>
> - WordNet Mappings: We've now mapped, by hand, all of the
>approximately 100,000 WordNet synsets to SUMO concepts. In addition to
>the nouns, we've mapped the verbs, adjectives, and adverbs.
><http://ontology.teknowledge.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/SUO/>
>
> - SUMO-Compliant Domain Ontologies. These include ontologies for
>weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, Quality of Service ontology,
>covering computer systems and networks, Ecommerce Services ontology,
>Ontology of biological viruses, Financial ontology, Ontology of terrain
>features, an ontology of Government, and a Periodic table of the
>elements.
><http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/index.html#download>
>
> - LOOM Translator for SUMO
><http://einstein.teknowledge.com:8080/Sumo2Loom/Sumo2Loom_register.jsp?fi
>leType=.tar&fileName=sumo2loom_b7.tar>
>
> - DAML translation of SUMO
><http://reliant.teknowledge.com/DAML/SUMO.daml>
>
> - XML translation of SUMO
><http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/Merge-XML.txt> and KIF to
>XML translator <http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/KIF2XML.txt>
>
> - open source browser download for SUMO
><http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/>
>
> - on-line SUMO browser
><http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&skb=SUMO>
>
>All of these items are freely available through our Ontology home page:
><http://ontology.teknowledge.com> or directly at the links above.
>
>Please insert vote here (YES, NO, or ABSTAIN): ( )
>
>--------End Ballot Question #1----------------------------------
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Ballot Question #2:
>
>Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working Group (SUO)
>commence work on a project to develop a standard for ontology
>specification and registration, according to the following guidelines:
>
> 1. The standard shall be based on the contributions of three SUO
>candidate projects: IFF, OpenCyc, and SUMO.
>
> 2. The standard shall specify an ontology registry, such as the
>metadata registries specified by ISO/IEC IS 11179-3, but with extensions
>that are required to define ontologies and to relate them to one another.
>
> 3. The ontology registry shall be organized as a collection of
>modules, related in a generalization/specialization hierarchy.
>
> 4. Each module shall consist of a theory together with
>documentation and other metadata. The theory shall consist of axioms
>and definitions stated in a logic-based language, such as those in the
>Common Logic (CL) framework.
>
> 5. The standard shall include the specification of a
>methodology for testing the theory part of any module for consistency,
>relating theories to one another in the generalization/specialization
>hierarchy, and combining two or more theories to derive a new theory
>that is larger and more specialized than the theories from which it was
>derived.
>
>Please insert vote here (YES, NO, or ABSTAIN): ( )
>
>--------End Ballot Question #2---------------------------------
>
>________________________________________________________________
>The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
>Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
>Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
>
>
>