SUO: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
john,
just now heading out to string some outdoor trees
before the snow flies, so will reply in more detail
later tonight.
i proposed the newsgroup channel only as a workaround
for the volume problem, that would incidentally create
a mirror archive at gmane -- i personally would insist
on keeping and working with the email channel and the
archive that we have, which i think is just dandy as
far as software circa december 2003 goes.
later,
jon
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
John F. Sowa wrote:
>
> Jon,
>
> That would be a major argument against Gmane:
>
> > The Gmane archive itself is only partly visible to web search engines,
> > I think only the headers of messages. This would be another reason to
> > keep the present Archive in place. In effect, the whole Gmane server
> > is treated like any other subscriber to the Main SUO List. We'll need
> > to make a decision about its e-lectoral status, but later.
>
> I use Google as my main tool for accessing e-mail archives (SUO, CG,
> Linguist List, and others). If it's not accessible to Google, that
> would seriously detract from its usefulness.
>
> Tom Johnston said that he would like to pursue the idea of having
> web pages allocated to any SUO members who request them. That would
> seem to be a good way to offload a lot of the email from SUO list.
>
> John
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o