RE: SUO: RE: Motion to Develop a 4 Dimensional Ontology and include it as a Component within the Information Flow Framework.
Dear Pierre,
I believe that technically the redrafted motion is OK as long as I
approve the changes (i.e. it has hot been changed in a way that
subverts my purpose in proposing it in the first place).
Otherwise it is for others to propose changes if they don't like
it - as you have done.
I will redraft.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pierre Grenon [mailto:pierre.grenon@ifomis.uni-leipzig.de]
> Sent: 08 September 2003 15:34
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> Cc: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail); Pierre Grenon
> Subject: RE: SUO: RE: Motion to Develop a 4 Dimensional Ontology and
> include it as a Component within the Information Flow Framework.
>
>
> > I am happy if we vote separately on point 1 and points 2 &
> 3 together.
> >
> > I suggest we keep this within one ballot, to keep the
> beaurocracy down.
> >
> > Would that be acceptable?
>
> Sure, this seems wise to me.
>
> Just to emphasize, the point is to formally separate the two
> putative groups
> involved (even if they are co-extensional) on the basis of
> the scope of their
> respective work programme. I take this is the effect of the
> solution you
> propose.
>
> > If so I will redraft the resolution to make
> > this clear.
>
> Since we're in the procedural nightmare, will the redrafted
> motion need a
> second?
>
> Best,
> Pierre
>