RE: SUO: RE: Charter vs. Consensus
Eric,
I agree. The fact that Cyc has been funded for a long time certainly
gives it some credibility and is one data point in any decision process
about which ontology to choose. One might say though that the funding has
been for a product which includes non-DL axioms, so whether the
consideration of funding history supports OpenCyc or not would still be in
question.
Adam
At 04:43 PM 6/25/2003 -0400, Eric Peterson wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 3:33 PM
> > To: Eric Peterson; Jon Awbrey
> > Cc: jim.s3@juno.com; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Subject: Re: SUO: RE: Charter vs. Consensus
> >
> > Eric,
> > No one is "censuring" anyone else, but I believe that axioms are
>needed
> > to meet the charter. You don't. I don't know if you're asserting
>that
> > they're not beneficial though so that could still be a reason for
>choosing
> > one "charter compliant" offering over another.
>
>[ELP] I'm participating in this group on my customer's nickel and am
>trying to influence this group in a direction that will support my
>customer's needs. My customer needs a common model for integrating
>scads of disparate DB's. This is my agenda.
>
>I learned logic and Prolog nearly two decades ago and continue to revel
>in the miracle of writing specifications that are also code. I've even
>contemplated celebrating Frege's birthday and I glory in what FOL is
>going to do for us in the coming years. But two decades later, the
>marketplace still isn't ready to embrace anything close to full FOL.
>
>I claim, therefore, that a DL-based upper ontology has by far the best
>claim on being our initial version-one deliverable. If this is true,
>DL-ness is no detriment to being considered as a possible starting-point
>for our work.
>
>If not true, choosing an upper ontology with a *long* track record in
>DARPA's marketplace sounds to me like the best foundation on which we
>may add non-DL axioms.
>
>Your small group has doing something really amazing in getting the
>notice and some degree of blessing from the ontological community. But
>you haven't paid your dues yet. When DARPA places their loving arms
>around SUMO for a decade or so, let's talk more about why you don't
>think OpenCyc would be a good starting point for the SUO's work.
>
>FWIW,
>
>-Eric
>
> > I do agree with you that we should have a charter and follow it. I
> > take
> > much of the controversy in this group to have at its root that
>different
> > groups of people have different goals. Rather than impeding each
>other, I
> > think it would be much better to codify charters that express the
>goals of
> > a small number of groups and then have this group split up, amicably.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > At 12:57 PM 6/25/2003 -0400, Eric Peterson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 11:01 AM
> > > > To: Eric Peterson
> > > > Cc: jim.s3@juno.com; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Charter vs. Consensus
> > > >
> > > > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> > > >
> > > > Eric,
> > > >
> > > > This brings up yet another facet of the objective of achieving
> > >consensus,
> > > > as it begins from a state of disconsensus, namely, that many of
>the
> > >words
> > > > and phrases of the charter, or scope and purpose document, have
>just
> > >as
> > > > many different ways of being read from different perspectives in
>this
> > > > (dis-)community as any of the other words and phrases that we have
> > > > to discuss in the content-oriented and method-oriented subtasks.
> > >
> > >[ELP] Language can be tightened down. Clarity can certainly be an
> > >iterative process sometimes.
> > >
> > > > And though referring to the prior compact certainly helps to
> > > > reduce uncertainty from time to time, it cannot, in the
> > > > absence of consensual interpretations, achiving which
> > > > is a part of the original problem, reduce it all that
> > > > much, nor ever absolutely, when it comes to that.
> > >
> > >[ELP] Aren't you arguing against all codified law and governance?
> > >
> > >
> > > > All subcommunities, some of the time, and some
> > > > subcommunities, all of the time, would like
> > > > to appoint themselves the sole-sufficient
> > > > interpreters of the charter, but there
> > > > is no reason to expect that they will
> > > > happen in a free and open society.
> > >
> > >[ELP] If it is a point that really matters, we can vote on it. And
>all
> > >our votes need to be reflected somewhere.
> > >
> > >But when calling for concreteness and specificity in criticisms of
>Cyc,
> > >I was expecting references to more ontologically egregious sins than
>not
> > >having SUMO's way-cool axioms.
> > >
> > >With Adam, I was simply making the observation that it didn't seem
>fair
> > >to me to publicly censure Cycorp for being charter compliant under a
> > >reasonable interpretation of the Charter. I certainly wasn't
>attempting
> > >to Mirandize him prior to incarceration.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So what Jim said initially continues to be apt.
> > > > The question that remains is how to achieve this
> > > > consensus in a way that is genuine and not forced.
> > >
> > >[ELP] Jon, you seem to want to reinvent long-standing methods of
> > >committee organization. I don't have time to read your papers on
> > >consensus building. I prefer starting with Roberts and fixing it
>when
> > >it breaks. That is already our de facto practice.
> > >
> > >BTW, where are you getting the "F"-word from in your last paragraph?
>A
> > >charter is consensus and far from force.
> > >
> > >FWIW,
> > >
> > >-Eric
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Jon Awbrey
> > > >
> > > > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> > > >
> > > > Eric Peterson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Moreover,
> > > > >
> > > > > I was told that the charter was a passed motion. If so, it is
> > >binding
> > > > > and is amendable only by a 2/3 majority (RRO 10th Edition p. 12,
> > >line
> > > > 25).
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: jim.s3@juno.com [mailto:jim.s3@juno.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 6:54 AM
> > > > > > To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > > > > Subject: SUO: Charter vs. Consensus
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Consensus is what matters. The PAR Scope and Purpose really
> > >doesn't
> > > > > > matter that much. It shouldn't prevent us from doing
>anything, or
> > > > > > force us to do anything else. If and when we finish a
>document
> > > > > > with enough consensus to pass an IEEE ballot, if it doesn't
> > > > > > match the Scope and Purpose, we simple amend it or submit
> > > > > > a new one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jim
> > > >
> > > > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o