SUO: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOP. Note 14
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
[Reposting, again, after 2 hours]
[Reposting, with corrections, for the record]
MW = Matthew West
MW: Dear Adam, Robert, and OpenCYC (sorry not sure who is PL for this)
MW: There seems to be a groundswell to let anyone raise issues.
For myself as a Project Leader I have no problem with this.
After all if it really does turn out to be a problem, we
can always change the rules.
MW: So I am inclined to relax this.
If you have a problem with that,
now would be the time to make
a case.
A suggestion on behalf of less ambiguous communication.
I picked up mediately on the fact that you e-ployed the
term "issue" as formalistic term_of_art to mean a topic
in question that members are formally obliged to attend
to or else forfeit their right to be have their mind be
granted otherwise due attention with regard to it, but
I fear that many people will not be accustomed to this
form of 2-speak (= doublespeak), indeed, I have already
noted the object example in which you used this 2-speak
finesse and by this finesse to say you ignored the point
of John Sowa's observation that clearly anybody ought to
be allowed to ask a question -- I believe that directive
has already been written on every wall of Philosophy City,
if indeed that existentialist graffito tends to fade from
time to time if not periodically applied with fresh paint --
as if somehow there were a genuine hair to be split between
asking a question and raising an issue. So again I suggest,
albeit with great reluctance, toward less picaresque speech,
it may serve to capitalize or to place in quotes or brackets
such term_of_art uses thus: Issue, "Issue", "<Issue>", etc.
Thanks In Prospect,
Jon Awbrey
P.S. Matthew, I hope that you, personally, will forgive me
the bluntness with which I will be forced to speak during
the course of these Procedure-setting deliberations, for
I fear that the Issues are far too important to avoid
the Obligations of Plain Speech. Thanks again, Jon.
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o