RE: SUO: RE: Charter vs. Consensus
Thanks for your thoughts, Adam.
I worked with one of the former Cyclists that excised OpenCyc from
full-Cyc. She never gave me the least indication that OpenCyc was
anything but a subset.
Are you aware of any reasons that we should suspect that the subset
lacks the robustness and soundness of the whole? Can you point us to
any full-Cyc axioms that would support such a suspicion?
Best,
-Eric
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 6:53 PM
> To: Eric Peterson; Jon Awbrey
> Cc: jim.s3@juno.com; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: 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