ONT Re: Vote 2001-02: IFF Foundation Ontology
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Jim,
In light of recent discussions on the list --
though I still wish that there would be more
discussion and more online exposition by its
author -- I believe that I can now convert my
abstention on the IFF Found Ontology to a "yes".
Just to be perfectly clear,
my vote on IFF is now "yes".
Yours truly,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I wrote:
>
> Jon,
> YOur vote has been recorded.
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Subj: Re: FW: Vote 2001-02: IFF Foundation Ontology
> From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu]
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 10:06 PM
> To: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Jim, I abstain, on account of what I believe has been
> insufficient preliminary discussion and exposition of
> this proposal on the list.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I wrote:
> >
> > ATTN Voting Members,
> >
> > I originally sent this to the SUO list,
> > but since some of you don't subscribe or
> > monitor all messages, here is a direct message.
> >
> > Jim Schoening
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Subj: SUO: Vote 2001-02: IFF Foundation Ontology
> > From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
> > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 10:47 PM
> > To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> >
> > ATTN Voting Members of the SUO WG,
> >
> > 1. Please immediately acknowledge receipt of this email letter ballot.
> > If I do not receive such acknowledgement within 5 days, I will
> > contact you again.
> >
> > We want to make sure all voting members receive this ballot.
> >
> > 2. This message is to ballot the question, as proposed by Robert Kent:
> >
> > "Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working Group commence work
> > on the IFF Foundation Ontology version 1.0 [July 20, 2001] posted at:
> >
> > http://suo.ieee.org/Kent-IFF.pdf
> >
> > with the intent of developing it into the final SUO document?
> >
> > Note 1: See the background information below for more details.
> > Note 2: This may be one of several candidate documents, any one of
> > which may become the final SUO document, or may be combined and aligned
> > into the final SUO document via the consensus building process. No one
> > candidate document will have preferential status relative to the others."
> >
> > 3. By Thursday, August 30, 2001, please vote YES (comments optional),
> > NO (comments required), or ABSTAIN (comments optional). Votes should
> > be sent directly to me (to reduce list traffic), but please post your
> > comments directly to the list so they have a chance to be resolved.
> > Comments sent to me will be forwarded to the SUO list.
> >
> > 4. Per the SUO Chair's interpretation of Robert's Rules of Order
> > (with input from members of the SUO P&P Subgroup), the following
> > items will be followed:
> >
> > This vote will pass if it receives a majority of YES vs. NO votes.
> > ABSTAINS and non-votes are not counted in determining majority.
> > The Chair may vote to make or break a tie. As all voting members
> > will have received and acknowledged receipt of this ballot and will
> > therefore have an opportunity to vote, there will be no quorum of votes
> > required for this motion to be determined. None of these items are
> > considered to be changes to existing policies and procedures,
> > only interpretations.
> >
> > 5. Non-voting participants are welcome to express opinions
> > and submit comments to the SUO list.
> >
> > 6. Background:
> >
> > a. 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.
> >
> > b. 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, since there would be no sense
> > resolving comments if the group does not want to proceed with
> > this document.
> >
> > c. 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 be
> > appointed or elected, who will incorporate WG-approved changes into the
> > document. 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, (1) the Technical Editor leads the discussion by processing
> > the issues and suggestions; (2) the issues/suggestions identify proposed
> > additions, changes, or deletions to the wording in the document;
> > (3) the Technical Editor asks the WG for any objections. Items
> > that do not have clear consensus would be accumulated for later,
> > more formal processing, i.e., the proposer of the issue/suggestion
> > is responsible for making a formal proposal (with a WG vote) for
> > the proposed change.
> >
> > Jim Schoening
> > Chair, SUO WG
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤