RE: Exploring options for a new home in IEEE
I'm in favor of preserving the archived messages and documents, and
establishing a new home for the group. I'd agree that a first order of
business for the new group should be to revisit scope, goals, name, etc. E.g
rather than "standard upper ontology", I'd propose "standard core ontology"
or "standard kernel ontology".
Phil Jackson
-----Original Message-----
From: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
[mailto:standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org] On Behalf Of James R. Schoening
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 10:40 PM
To: standard-upper-ontology@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Exploring options for a new home in IEEE
Robert, No need to seek a new home for IFF just yet, unless you want
to. If we move to the IEEE Technical Committee on Data Engineering, that
should be a good home for your project.
Matthew West, Yes, we should wonder what we would do if we moved, but I
suggest we move first. If we later decide to do nothing, at least we have a
home to store our archived messages and documents. IEEE has the nice
advantage of being a mega society, but nobody has to actually join to
participate. Annual dues are probably at least $150. I have three good
ideas but I'm don't want to get into them while we're still unchartered.
By staying with IEEE, I don't believe that locks us into IEEE if we ever
wanted to try again with another standard. I believe we could always go to
another Standards Developing Organization.
Jim Schoening
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:27:34 -0700 rekent <rekent@ontologos.org> writes:
> John and Jim,
>
> I continue to work on the IFF project. Should I be looking for a new
> home for it?
>
> Robert
>
> -----Original message-----
> From: "John F. Sowa" sowa@bestweb.net
> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:22:57 -0700
> To: "jim.s3@juno.com" jim.s3@JUNO.COM
> Subject: Re: Exploring options for a new home in IEEE
>
> > Jim,
> >
> > Most of the active members (plus a lot of new ones) seem to have
> > moved to ontolog-forum.
> >
> > But since an inactive list does not cause any annoyance to anybody,
> > there is no real need to shut it down soon.
> >
> > Perhaps subscribers may have some suggestions for what to do with
> > it.
> >
> > John
>
>