Re: SUO: RE: Conclusion of Vote and Call for Volunteers for Techn icalEditor.
Bob,
If the work that Teknowledge and Cycorp are doing is not current
technology, what is? What's the alternative, specifically? Who is using
"current technology" and what products are there of such efforts that you
feel we should be considering?
Adam
At 04:56 PM 2/28/2001 -0800, Robert Grayson Spillers wrote:
>Graham,
>Your note leads me to think that you believe I am advocating CYC's upper
>level as the basis of a standard. I am not. CYC's upper level was
>constructed using the same methods Teknowledge proposes. Neither CYC's
>ontology nor Teknowledge's proposed ontology are current technology. I am
>opposed to BOTH as the basis of a standard.
>
>Both CYC and Teknowledge's ontologies will be useful in populating an
>upper level ontology. I don't mean that they can be used without
>modification (with luck, perhaps some portions can be used "as is"). Most
>of both ontologies should be useful to some degree.
>
>However, it is not technology (old or new) that are the reasons for my
>objections. I will outline them below.
>
>1) This vote was called for by the chair on his own initiative without a
>consensus on either the issue itself or on the need for such a
>vote. Normally in this sort of group, votes are used to formalize a
>consensus that has already been reached.
>
>2) The vote met resistance from the group and the chair then
>characterized it as a "straw vote" with no official status.
>
>3) The group has been advised on several occasions (when objections on
>other issues were raised) that there were no established procedures for
>voting in an IEEE Working Group. After the vote was taken and the results
>announced, the chair - when challenged - stated that Robert's Rules are
>the method for vote counting in a IEEE WG.
>
>4) It is obvious that many of the processes in Robert's Rules were not
>observed.
>
>5) The vote (YES = 11, NO = 9, ABSTAIN = 4) shows a very divided
>group. At best a thin majority of YES vs NO, and clearly not a majority
>of all the votes cast - certainly not a majority of those eligible to vote
>(50% majority, not the 75% super majority frequently required in standards
>work).
>
>6) On the basis of a "thin majority" in a "straw poll" the chair
>announces his official "Proposed Conclusions and Actions from Vote" -
>subject, of course, to there being no objections to his proposals. When
>multiple objections were stated, the chair deemed them to be too few to
>warrant a change in his proposed actions.
>
>I do not object to Teknowledge continuing this work. I think it is
>valuable work and will eventually be useful in a standard upper level
>ontology - just not in the manner they believe it to be useful. The work
>is entirely under the control of Teknowledge, and they may proceed as they
>wish. I have no objection to their ontology being posted on the WG web
>site as "a" or "one" of the unofficial documents being worked on by the
>WG. Ian is the obvious choice to be the technical editor for this
>work. Since it is his (his company's) work no appointment is
>necessary. If he agrees to be bound by the opinions of the WG on
>technical matters regarding this work, he may do so without anyone's
>appointment or approval. All of the things proposed can be done
>informally and without objection.
>
>Why is this important?
>
>a) The chair has abused the process. This creates division and lack of
>trust within the group.
>
>b) A "straw vote" is not a vote and no actions may proceed from it.
>
>c) Votes on issues of substance should not be taken in standards groups
>unless a broad consensus has developed. Only things (usually
>administrative) that must be decided immediately should be put to a vote
>without such a consensus. It is normally the role of the chair to
>facilitate consensus - not division.
>
>d) Since all of the actions proposed by the chair may be done informally
>and without objection (at least from me), these actions only artificially
>introduce divisiveness and mistrust.
>
>
>Bob
>
>
>"Horn, Graham" wrote:
>>Bob,
>> . I don't want to disregard real concerns, and I hope you
>>don't think I am.
>>
>> . I wonder what can be gained by questioning "Why is there a
>>need to take a formal decision? Why is there a need to formally appoint a
>>technical editor - the work is already completely under Ian's (Teknowledge?)
>>control? Why declare formal decisions as the result of a "straw vote" whose
>>result is dubious - at best a thin majority?" No matter how unsatisfactory
>>the answers are, the ballot we have had has happened, and I suspect it would
>>be hard to undo in any satisfactory manner.
>>
>> . Underlying your concerns, I feel you likely have an option
>>in mind that you feel is being hindered. At the risk of asking you to repeat
>>yourself, would you lake to restate what you feel should happen that is
>>being prevented by the current approach?
>>
>> . If I am interpreting you correctly, your main concern is
>>your belief that "this approach will not produce anything significantly
>>better than work already completed. It will be different, but not better".
>>You seem to want to build on Cyc. That would be fine if we could overcome
>>the copyright issues Jim has described to us. Do you have a means of
>>overcoming them?
>>
>> . Is the "trust" issue you are referring to? What are you
>>suggesting would be an alternative way ahead? Given the group's commitment
>>to making the SUO available free of charge, how can we address this issue in
>>a way that gives the group a security over its effort? In particular, how
>>can we do it other than by binding commitments (such as releases on
>>copyright)?
>>
>> . In the same vein, are you able to briefly explain the
>>salient aspects differentiating the current work from "current technology"
>>in a way that makes it obvious to us? Unfortunately, I suspect that speaking
>>in generalities that do not at least make the specific issues evident are
>>unlikely to make the problems clear enough for us to comprehend their
>>weight. This is the quandary always faced by people wishing to sell
>>concepts. I am reminded that my desk calendar for 3 Dec '00 has the saying:
>>by Benjamin Jowett: "The way to get things done is not to mind who gets the
>>credit for doing them".
>>
>> . I realise the above questions may put you in a quandary,
>> but
>>not one I haven't seen before. I have witnessed many cases where people have
>>resisted paying for intellectual property, and where they have often gone
>>without those few key words that would let them in on the secret. I don't
>>know any way around that one.
>>
>> . If there's a viable approach you can suggest that makes
>>sense to us, I'm sure we will all seriously consider it. NOTHING is set in
>>concrete.
>>
>>Cheers Graham Horn
>>National Data Standards Unit
>>Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
>>================================================
>>Phone: 02.6244.1094
>>Fax: 02.6244.1199
>>Email: Graham.Horn@aihw.gov.au
>><<mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au>mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Robert Grayson Spillers
>>[<mailto:skydog@pacbell.net>mailto:skydog@pacbell.net]
>>Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2001 11:36 AM
>>To: Horn, Graham; 'Standard-Upper-Ontology '
>>Subject: Re: SUO: RE: Conclusion of Vote and Call for Volunteers for
>>Techn icalEditor.
>>
>>Graham,
>>I do think you miss my point (and Pat's). It is unnecessary to have these
>>votes or make these choices at this time. I believe this approach will not
>>produce anything significantly better than work already completed. It will
>>be different, but not better.
>>
>>Others disagree and want to proceed. I believe that their work can be
>>useful although not for the purposes they intend. All of this can proceed
>>(in parallel if necessary) on an informal basis.
>>
>>There is no conflict except the one artificially introduced by this vote.
>>
>>The original work on alignment and merger was done by CYC (Fritz Lehmann)
>>and USC / ISI (Ed Hovy) for the Ad Hoc Committee on Ontology. I funded this
>>work with IBM's money. The contract required all of the work to be
>>completely in the public domain. I also disclosed these relationships to
>>the committee before the work began. Although CYC has vastly improved this
>>work with the expenditure of significant additional time and money, it is
>>the same basic approach.
>>
>>Time (and research) has moved on and this is not current technology.
>>Reasonable people may disagree. I would be happy (well, at least not
>>unhappy) to be proved wrong about this.
>>
>>Why is there a need to take a formal decision? Why is there a need to
>>formally appoint a technical editor - the work is already completely under
>>Ian's (Teknowledge?) control? Why declare formal decisions as the result of
>>a "straw vote" whose result is dubious - at best a thin majority?
>>
>>Technical merit and flexibility (although issues) are not the basic issue.
>>Trust is the basic issue - not merely bad judgment.
>>
>>Bob
>>
>>"Horn, Graham" wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Rob,
>> > . I think I can see in your e-mail (and many others in
>> > retrospect), a sensitivity to the group being seen as having chosen
>> > something.
>> >
>> > . Basically, it appears there is some feeling that Ian's
>>work
>> > cannot adapt to accommodate areas you believe are fundamentally
>> important.
>> >
>> > . I have taken the approach that the way ahead CAN
>>accommodate
>> > such matters, it's just a matter of how deep the structural changes will
>> > have to be to do it. As an engineer I can think of many examples of both
>> > hardware and software where major changes of paradigm have been made, and
>> > even cases where the change was reversed as much as a decade or more
>>later.
>> >
>> > . Furthermore, as time passes, technological advances make
>> > other approaches appropriate, or even possible when previously they
>>weren't.
>> > We live in a world of change.
>> >
>> > . Is it really so important if we settle on a particular
>>path
>> > for the time being? Especially as we have one that is so flexible. I
>>suggest
>> > that no-one demands that the first iteration of a new standard be
>> perfect.
>> > There will be no skin off anyone's noses if there are major
>> redevelopments
>> > and redesigns; so why worry so much. What will happen is that we'll all
>> > learn a lot.
>> >
>> > Cheers Graham Horn
>> > National Data Standards Unit
>> > Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
>> > ================================================
>> > Phone: 02.6244.1094
>> > Fax: 02.6244.1199
>> > Email: Graham.Horn@aihw.gov.au
>> <<mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au>mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au>
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Robert Grayson Spillers
>> [<mailto:skydog@pacbell.net>mailto:skydog@pacbell.net]
>> > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 4:47 PM
>> > To: Horn, Graham
>> > Cc: 'skydog@pacbell.net'; 'Josiah Lee Auspitz'; Niles Teknowledge Ian
>> > (E-mail); Schoening CECOM DCSC4I James (E-mail); Standard-Upper-Ontology
>> > (E-mail); Kent E. Robert (E-mail)
>> > Subject: Re: SUO: RE: Conclusion of Vote and Call for Volunteers
>>for
>> > Technical Editor
>> >
>> > Hi Graham,
>> > Many, probably most, of the people who voted believe Ian's work is useful
>> > and
>> > hope he will continue it. Some are willing to help directly and many
>> are
>> > willing to offer critiques. The problem I have with this is "official"
>> > status.
>> > Any number of ontology's may be posted to the web page as something
>> the WG
>> > is
>> > considering, members are enhancing or refining, etc. as long as it is
>>clear
>> > that
>> > it is only one of (possibly) many and enjoys no privileged or "official"
>> > status.
>> >
>> > Although this work will undoubtedly be useful in the later stages of
>> upper
>> > level
>> > ontological development, I (and others) do not believe it can be the
>> basis
>> > for
>> > such an ontology. The reasons for this view have been previously
>> stated.
>> >
>> > I do not wish it to appear this approach (or any other) is one that has
>> > been
>> > formally chosen by the WG. I do not object to the proposed actions on an
>> > informal basis and do not see any benefit to the WG that can be derived
>>from
>> > a
>> > characterization of the proposed actions as formally taken or official.
>> > Later,
>> > if and when a different approach is offered, the new approach does not
>>bear
>> > the
>> > burden of objections about changing the focus or otherwise challenging
>> > prevailing orthodoxy.
>> >
>> > I think I am very easy to please in this regard. Just do what you
>> want to
>> > do,
>> > but do it informally. Do not characterize it as the result of a
>> decision
>> > formally taken by the WG. You will get the same result.
>> >
>> > Regarding the issues Lee Auspitz raised particularly those about
>> resolving
>> > outstanding issues and reaching consensus, I agree and will have more to
>>say
>> > later.
>> >
>> > After this situation is resolved, I will offer for discussion a
>> suggestion
>> > on
>> > voting rules. If a general consensus develops, I will move for a formal
>> > vote on
>> > adoption.
>> >
>> > Bob
>> >
>> > "Horn, Graham" wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Lee and Rob (Skydog),
>> > > . While I understand where you're coming
>> > from,
>> > > isn't it better to just get on with it at this stage?
>> > >
>> > > . Yes, I have problems with the voting method, too.
>>However,
>> > I
>> > > feel the later approval stages is the time to really address them.
>> > >
>> > > . Personally, I believe the call for a vote, and the way
>>it
>> > > was done was a mistake, but even Jim has apologised for that.
>> > >
>> > > . Many of us agree Ian's work is worthwhile. Matthew is
>> > > prepared to contribute to it, including scoping and technical
>> > documentation.
>> > > Ian is prepared to take on board comments and criticisms, and rectify
>> > > problem areas and faulty portions.
>> > >
>> > > . Meanwhile, Robert Kent is working on a new project that
>> > may
>> > > be of relevance to the overall effort.
>> > >
>> > > . Where's the problem?
>> > >
>> > > Cheers Graham Horn
>> > > National Data Standards Unit
>> > > Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
>> > > ================================================
>> > > Phone: 02.6244.1094
>> > > Fax: 02.6244.1199
>> > > Email: Graham.Horn@aihw.gov.au
>> <<mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au>mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au>
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: skydog@pacbell.net
>> [<mailto:skydog@pacbell.net>mailto:skydog@pacbell.net]
>> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 11:50 AM
>> > > To: Josiah Lee Auspitz
>> > > Cc: Ian Niles; 'Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I';
>>Standard-Upper-Ontology
>> > > (E-mail)
>> > > Subject: Re: SUO: RE: Conclusion of Vote and Call for Volunteers for
>> > > TechnicalEdit or
>> > >
>> > > Jim,
>> > > I share Lee's concerns regarding these issues.
>> > > However I wish to discuss issues about the vote itself and what, if
>> > > anything, it means. It is not clear from Robert's Rules of Order that
>>the
>> > > vote should be counted by the method you used - particularly how the
>> > ABSTAIN
>> > > votes were counted. It is a possible interpretation - Robert's calls
>> for
>> > > counting of all the votes cast and determining a majority of the YES vs
>>NO
>> > > votes with blank votes not counted. In this circumstance is an ABSTAIN
>> > vote
>> > > a blank vote? Since it requires comments, I think it is not a blank
>>vote.
>> > > Reasonable people can disagree, but it is not clear how the rule should
>>be
>> > > applied.
>> > > It is unwise to wait until the vote is taken to announce the method and
>> > > authority used to determine the results.
>> > > Robert's rules were not designed for this sort of vote and the
>> > > interpretation of this particular issue is murky. Clearly most
>> standards
>> > > efforts strive for a broad based consensus and usually require 75% of
>> > those
>> > > eligible to vote (effectively a quorum) and 75% of those actually
>>voting.
>> > > ABSTAIN whether counted as NO or not does apply to the calculation of
>>75%
>> > of
>> > > those actually voting. (In your call for a vote ABSTAIN was listed as a
>> > > possible voting choice with attendant requirements - i.e. comments
>> > > required.)
>> > > Regardless of how the vote was counted, other provisions of Robert's
>>Rules
>> > > were not observed. In particular the making of motions and call for a
>>vote
>> > > on the initiative of the chair. I do recall someone raising a point of
>> > > order.
>> > > This vote was then characterized as a "straw vote" and not an
>> "official"
>> > > action of the group. I have no problem with an expression of opinion. I
>>do
>> > > have a problem if the chair then announces his "Proposed Conclusions
>> and
>> > > Actions" as a result of the "straw vote". It appears to be an official
>> > > action of the WG.
>> > > Reference to "a" or "one" unofficial document being worked on by some
>> > > members of the WG, more accurately reflects the situation. It is Niles
>> > > (Teknowledge?) work and he is completely in charge of how it proceeds.
>>If
>> > he
>> > > agrees to be bound by the consensus of the WG and do the work of
>>technical
>> > > editor, I applaud him - it is very useful work. An "official"
>>appointment
>> > as
>> > > "technical editor" is unnecessary and inappropriate. It appears to
>> put a
>> > > stamp on something that has not been formally agreed to. I have no
>> > objection
>> > > to informal arrangements.
>> > > Once again I wish to point out that I believe this vote to be
>>unnecessary
>> > > and divisive.
>> > > In your note of 2/13/01 titled " SUO: Proposed Conclusions and Actions
>> > from
>> > > Vote" you asked if there were any objections. I object.
>> > > Bob
>> > >
>> > > Josiah Lee Auspitz wrote:
>> > > Jim,
>> > > Maybe you or some ome of the other experts in IEEE procedure in our
>>ranks
>> > > could clarify what is going on here.
>> > > First you posted several topics as needing consensus before we proceed.
>> > What
>> > > is the status of the consensus on these topics? Does it warrant
>> plunging
>> > > ahead before developing a greater consensus? I strongly think not.
>> > > Second, you responded to Graham Horn that it was wrong for a single
>> > > organization, no matter how large and influential, to claim multiple
>> > votes.
>> > > Yet of the 11 Yes votes I count at least three from Teknowledge just
>> the
>> > > number needed to assure a majority. Wasn't there some celebrated
>> case in
>> > > IEEE involving bloc voting by a single company (as opposed to
>> > individualized
>> > > participation in the case of the Boeing participants)? [This is the
>> kind
>> > of
>> > > problem I tried to suggest in noting the limitations of the "material
>> > > interest" criterion for the peculiar character of the SUO.]
>> > > Of course this is only a straw vote, and everybody good humoredly
>>followed
>> > > your request for it, your revision of it, your launching of discussion
>>of
>> > > the comments, and now your declaration that we can put it all behind us
>>on
>> > > the basis of Roberts Rules of Order. Before following this next turn I
>> > think
>> > > it would be prudent to ask you to summarize the status of consensus on
>>the
>> > > discussion points you proposed and to assure that the agreement on them
>>is
>> > > sufficient to make it productive to plunge onward. Otherwise, the next
>> > round
>> > > of reviews will not be more favorable than this round, or you may find
>> > > active participation limited to the point of diminishing legitimacy.
>> The
>> > > array of talents on this list is very impressive for the job at hand,
>>and
>> > > good advice has been proffered by seasoned hands. It would be a pity to
>> > see
>> > > all this squandered.
>> > > Lee
>> > > Josiah Lee Auspitz
>> > > lee@textwise.com
>> > > 17 Chapel Street
>> > > Somerville, MA 02144
>> > > 617-628-6228
>> > > fax -9441
>> > > Please send attachments pasted within text or in ASCII
>> > > Plain Text non-proprietary software.
>> > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Ian Niles wrote:
>> > > > Hi Jim,
>> > > > I hereby volunteer for the role of Technical Editor of the Merged
>> > > > Ontology document.
>> > >
>> > > > -Ian
>> > >
>> > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
>> > > > >
>> [<mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil>mailto:James.Schoening@m
>> ail1.monmouth.army.mil
>> > > <mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil> ]
>> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 7:11 PM
>> > > > > To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
>> > > > > Subject: SUO: Conclusion of Vote and Call for Volunteers for
>>Technical
>> > > Editor
>> > >
>> > > > > SUO:
>> > >
>> > > > > As there have been no objections to the below proposed
>> > > > > conclusions
>> > > > > and proposed actions, they are considered adopted.
>> > > > > Congratulations, Ian,
>> > > > > Adam, and all those who have contributed to the Merged Ontology.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > We now need to select a Technical Editor for this
>> > > > > document, via an
>> > > > > open and fair process. I would now like to issue a 'Call
>> > > > > for Volunteers'
>> > > > > for the position of Technical Editor of the Merged Ontology
>>document.
>> > > > > Please respond to me and/or this list by Feb 23rd, or if this
>> > > > > is not enough
>> > > > > time, ask for an extension.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Jim Schoening
>> > >
>> > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
>> > > > >
>> [<mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil>mailto:James.Schoening@m
>> ail1.monmouth.army.mil
>> > > <mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil> ]
>> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 6:53 PM
>> > > > > To: 'Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)'
>> > > > > Subject: SUO: Proposed Conclusions and Actions from Vote
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > SUO,
>> > > > > Final vote results on Merged Ontology (see ballot question
>> > > > > below) are:
>> > > > > YES = 11
>> > > > > NO = 9
>> > > > > ABSTAIN = 4
>> > >
>> > > > > YES votes were from: John Thompson, Adam Pease, John Velman,
>> > > > > Graham Horn,
>> > > > > Roberto Bordogna, Ian Niles, Douglas McDavid, John Sowa,
>> > > > > Fredrick Chase,
>> > > > > Frank Farance, Jay Halcomb.
>> > > > > NO votes were from: Matthew West, Chris Partridge, Robert
>> > > > > Kent, Stefano
>> > > > > Borgo, John Dickert, Francis McCabe, Lee Auspitz, Bob
>> > > > > Spillers, Chris Angus.
>> > >
>> > > > > ABSTAINs were from: Pat Hayes, Michael Uschold, Sofia Pinto, Nicola
>> > > > > Guarino
>> > > > > Please correct me if I have tabulated your vote incorrectly.
>> > > > > Observations:
>> > > > > 1. The IEEE default voting rule within a working group is a simple
>> > > > > majority of YES vs. NO votes, with ABSTAINs not included in
>> > > > > determining
>> > > > > majority.
>> > > > > 2. This vote was presented as an unofficial straw poll,
>> > > > > because we are
>> > > > > currently establishing the list of official voters.
>> > > > > 3. We previously established considerable opposition to calling the
>> > > > > Merged Ontology a "Base Document," and have since modified
>> > > > > the question to
>> > > > > remove this label.
>> > > > > 4. All comments that were directly related to the question
>> > > > > have been
>> > > > > posted, and received much discussion. Some votes did change
>> > > > > as a result of
>> > > > > discussion and are reflected in the above results. Those
>> > > > > comments that
>> > > > > related to improving the document were not to be addressed
>> > > > > until and unless
>> > > > > the group decided to work on this document. This is the way ballot
>> > > > > resolution works. We try to improve documents and build
>> consensus by
>> > > > > resolving comments.
>> > > > > 5. This is a very early-on vote in the development of the proposed
>> > > > > document.
>> > > > > It will eventually need to gain 75% approval from the final
>> > > > > balloting group.
>> > > > > Proposed Conclusions:
>> > > > > 1. A simple majority voted YES to the question (copy
>> > > > > below), therefore,
>> > > > > this vote has passed, but by a recognized thin margin.
>> > > > > 2. Aside from the thin approval margin, the group appears to have
>> > > > > rather strong consensus that work should proceed on the
>> > > > > Merged Ontology.
>> > > > > This comes even from many of those who voted NO, who did so
>> > > > > for the reasons
>> > > > > in the posted comments.
>> > >
>> > > > > Proposed Actions resulting from above:
>> > > > > Step 1: Post link to Merged Ontology on SUO web site at
>> > > > > <http://suo.ieee.org>http://suo.ieee.org <http://suo.ieee.org> .
>> > > > > as follows:
>> > > > > Documents under development by this working group:
>> > > > > 1. Merged Ontology <link address>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Step 2: Select a Technical Editor for Merged Ontology document, to
>>be
>> > > > > accomplished by issuing a 'Call for volunteers' followed by
>> > > > > an open and fair
>> > > > > selection process.
>> > > > > Step 3: Place Merged Ontology Document under control of SUO
>> > > > > WG, requiring
>> > > > > Technical Editor to gain approval from group before making
>> > > > > changes. This
>> > > > > would be mostly via an informal consensus process, but would
>> > > > > also include
>> > > > > formal votes (with comment resolution) every 3-6 months.
>> > > > > Step 4: Technical Editor will resolve all comments from the
>> > > > > previous vote
>> > > > > that dealt with improvements to Merged Ontology. Additional
>> > > > > comments will
>> > > > > also be solicited.
>> > > > > Are there any objections to these Observations, Proposed
>> > > > > Conclusions, or
>> > > > > Proposed Actions?
>> > > > > Jim Schoening
>> > > > > Chair, SUO WG
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ===============================
>> > > > > The completed call for vote follows:
>> > >
>> > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
>> > > > >
>> [<mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil>mailto:James.Schoening@m
>> ail1.monmouth.army.mil
>> > > <mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil> ]
>> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 7:03 AM
>> > > > > To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
>> > > > > Subject: SUO: Revised Call for Vote on Merged Ontology
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > SUO Participants,
>> > > > > 1. Since the prior vote had a variety of problems, it is amended as
>> > > > > follows to focus on the key question.
>> > > > > 2. If you have already cast a vote (and received
>> > > > > acknowledgement) you
>> > > > > don't need to vote again, unless you wish to change your vote
>> > > > > or comments.
>> > > > > However, this is an open list and all are welcome to post or
>> > > > > repost their
>> > > > > opinions.
>> > > > > 3. This message is a call for a vote on the question:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Should the IEEE Standard Upper Ontology Working Group
>> > > > > commence work on the
>> > > > > Merged Ontology as posted by Ian Niles with the intent of
>> > > > > attempting to
>> > > > > develop it into a final standards document?
>> > > > > 4. Background: If this vote passes, this document will change from
>> > > > > being the work (and under the control) of a group of
>> > > > > individuals to being
>> > > > > the work (and under the control) of the SUO WG. A Technical
>> > > > > Editor will
>> > > > > need to be appointed or elected, who will need group approval
>> > > > > before making
>> > > > > changes. This does not require frequent formal votes for
>> > > > > every change. A
>> > > > > better approach for daily or weekly updates is to develop consensus
>>by
>> > > > > resolving objections, as we did when revising the Scope and
>> > > > > Purpose. In
>> > > > > other words, the editor posts a suggested change and asks for any
>> > > > > objections. Items that do not have clear consensus would be
>> > > > > accumulated.
>> > > > > Then, every 3-6 months the group could have a formal vote on
>> > > > > what would be
>> > > > > the next 'Working Draft.' Comments would be submitted and
>> > > > > resolved before
>> > > > > approval as the next Working Draft.
>> > > > > 5. The purpose of this vote is to determine the level of
>> > > > > consensus we
>> > > > > have for focusing work on this document. In other words, we
>> > > > > need to decide
>> > > > > if we are going to go down this path or not. A working group
>> > > > > may decide to
>> > > > > work on more than one document, so anyone else is free to submit
>>one.
>> > > > > 6. The primary purpose of this vote is NOT to propose
>> > > > > improvements to
>> > > > > the document, unless they are major enough for you to vote
>> > > > > against focusing
>> > > > > work on this document. However, such general improvement comments
>>are
>> > > > > welcome and will be resolved (but not unless and until the
>> > > > > vote passes.
>> > > > > There would be no sense in resolving comments if the group
>> > > > > does not want to
>> > > > > proceed with this document.).
>> > > > > 7. Since we are still in the process of establishing
>> > > > > official voting
>> > > > > rights, I suggest we first conduct this as an unofficial
>> > > > > straw poll, such
>> > > > > that anyone can cast a vote. After resolving all comments,
>> > > > > if consensus is
>> > > > > not clear, we will have the option of conducting a formal
>> > > > > vote (once voting
>> > > > > rights are established).
>> > > > > 8. Your options for voting are YES (comments optional), NO
>> > > > > (comments
>> > > > > required), or ABSTAIN (comments optional).
>> > > > > 9. You may send your votes either to me or to this reflector.
>> > > > > 10. Please vote by Feb 1, 2001.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Jim Schoening
>> > > > > Chair, SUO WG
-----------------
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571