RE: Time to request PAR extension
Jim,
Sorry if I missed this -- Which starter document claims to be 80% complete?
On what basis is this claim made?
If such a statement is made, it should be explained so that its limitations
and implications are clear. Ideally, the group as a whole should be able to
support the statement. Minimally, the owner of the starter document should
be able to explain and defend the claim.
Phil Jackson
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of
> jim.s3@juno.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 6:29 PM
> To: standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG;
> SUO-STATUS@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Time to request PAR extension
>
>
> ATTN SUO Members,
>
> It's time to request an extension from IEEE for our
> Project Authorization Request. The typical request is for an
> additional 2 years, and further extensions can be requested
> provided progress is being made. I am told by IEEE staff this
> first request will be easy to obtain.
>
> This is a chair administrative action not requiring
> formal voting, but I naturally seek your input and consensus.
>
> Attached is the application form, which asks for an
> explanation of progress, which we obviously have differing
> opinions on. I mention our 6 starter documents, state one of
> them (which is not named) is 80% complete, but am clear that we
> have no consensus to pursue any one of the documents. The 80%
> figure is not an endorsement of any one of our documents, but
> rather just an administrative statement to show progress.
>
> Does anyone have any suggested changes?
>
> Jim Schoening
>