RE: SUO: Vote on Merged Ontology as a 'Base Document' for SUO WG
"2. If we pass this vote and decide to work on this document, this will
indeed provide some level of inertia for this approach,"
Jim, I hope you mean "momentum".
Sorry for having a bit of a joke, tho' I feel a sense of humour is needed at
times ...... I have been frequently caught on this particular metaphor
myself.
Naturally, I concur with the thrust of your e-mail.
Cheers Graham Horn
National Data Standards Unit
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
================================================
Phone: +61.2.6244.1094
Fax: +61.2.6244.1199
Email: Graham.Horn@aihw.gov.au <mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au>
-----Original Message-----
From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
[mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 11:16 AM
To: 'pat hayes'; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
Subject: RE: SUO: Vote on Merged Ontology as a 'Base Document' for
SUO WG
Pat,
You have correctly pointed out some aspects of this vote.
1. The label "Base Document' does sound of importance, which appears to be a
sticking point with many of the NO votes. This is why that label was
removed from the vote. It will not be called a Base Document.
2. If we pass this vote and decide to work on this document, this will
indeed provide some level of inertia for this approach, but it is completely
within the power of the group to change. The group could vote to stop
working on the document, vote to work on a different document, vote to make
whatever changes it wants, or whatever.
3. But understand, if we don't pass this vote, this means the group will not
resolve any comments or work to improve the document. Niles might continue
on his own, but could we really expect him to continue if the group has
voted not to work on the document? Also, if the groups wants the work to
continue, doesn't it want some control over what gets inserted? I see no
logic in the group voting it down but encouraging Niles to continue. It's
not like the group is too busy working on other documents.
Jim Schoening
-----Original Message-----
From: pat hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 2:32 PM
To: Horn, Graham
Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: RE: SUO: Vote on Merged Ontology as a 'Base Document' for SUO
WG
>To Matthew & John, and all the rest,
> . Based on the principles set
>out by Jim, the rationale here sounds pretty well like a YES, not a NO, to
>me.
>
> . Basically, the sentiment seems to be that we should continue
>with the structure Ian has assembled. I may have missed something (I
haven't
>read all the discussion on the voting), but I haven't seen anyone arguing
>for a stop to Ian's work, nor any offer of any alternative proposals.
There are two issues which need to be clearly separated. First,
should Niles' cease work on his merged ontology? Clearly not; but
that doesnt require any kind of vote from us. Second, should this
group somehow officially endorse, certify, provisionally accept, give
some kind of special group status to, or otherwise take special note
of, Niles' document? This is what I was voting against, largely
because I think it is premature to do so. Now, given the subsequent
emails, it appears that the status of 'Base Document' has no actual
implication at all. If this is really correct then I will change my
vote to ABSTAIN, as the entire voting process seems pointless in this
case. However, I hae me doots that this is *really* what the vote
means, and suspect that this status of 'Base document', if accepted,
will in the future be used to argue that the SUO must be based on
Niles' document.
Pat Hayes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes