SUO: RE: Motion to Develop a 4 Dimensional Ontology
Dear Jon,
I am simply responding to the discussion we have been having. It is
clear that the very original motion was inadequate, and I have been
responding to the discussion of the motion to propose rewording
of it.
Now I agree this is normally restricted to wordsmithing, but as long
as we are working within the intent of the original motion, then I
am happy with it.
The procedural material is clearly necessary to explain where I am
positioning the data model with respect to some part of a standard.
I might add that I am somewhat surprised at how different my ideas of
what we are about and how to do it seem to be from at least some others,
so I think we need something to help us work that out anyway.
But if anyone cares to object I would be prepared to withdraw my
original motion and start again with this one. Seems a bit of a waste
of time though.
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: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@att.net]
> Sent: 08 September 2003 18:36
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> Cc: Pierre Grenon; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail); Jim Schoening
> Subject: Re: Motion to Develop a 4 Dimensional Ontology
>
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> Matthew,
>
> Is this a new motion, or a revision of the one in discussion period?
> I am puzzled that you would be stepping all over your own
> previous motion,
> currently under discusion, with this new or revised motion,
> not yet seconded,
> not to mention the raising of a whole new proceural topic.
> It just seems like
> a curious thing to do, strategically speaking.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
> >
> > Dear Pierre,
> >
> > 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? If so I will redraft the
> resolution to make this clear.
> >
> > Matthew West
> > Principal Consultant
> > Shell Information Technology International Limited
> > Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
>