SUO: Re: Lifecycle Integration Schema
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
John F. Sowa wrote:
>
> Jon and Matthew,
>
> I was trying to achieve multiple goals in the
> same motion: (1) get the three most prominent
> groups to work together, and (2) to enable the
> SUO to accommodate any and every reasonable
> system that might come along.
>
> > JA: As I understood the spirit of Sowa's Umbrella Motion that passed
> on the last electoral cycle, it was meant to facilitate our giving
> due consideration to any new ontology proposals of a serious nature,
> without all the energy-&-motion-&-time-dissipating fuss of votes ...
>
> > MW: You may recall that my initial informal entry into the fray
> was mostly asking how to proceed. But my recollection was
> John's motion ended up only talking about SUMO and OpenCYC,
> and not being clearly open ended.
>
> I would be happy to vote for Matthew's proposal, but
> it would be useful to consider whether we will need
> a formal vote to accommodate every new contribution.
>
> John Sowa
John,
You have summed up my thought exactly.
The important thing is how the proponents
of a document conduct themselves after it
has passed the bar of initial consideration.
Do they value the expert advice and critical
input that comes from outside their local shop,
or not? It's not a thing that can be faked, but
it will be a prerequisite of achieving a widely
respected and successful upper ontology standard.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o