SUO: Re: Procedural Questions
I strongly endorse Jon Awbrey's critique of SUMO:
> There are plenty of external criteria as to "what is standard
> elsewhere" (WISE) that we might draw on as measures of ontological
> "fitness" to purpose. So it is not a matter of "creating" our own
> criteria for grading ourselves, so much as reflecting on existing
> criteria and trying to render them explicit, for our own good.
> To say that SUMO must be approaching a state of "good enoughness"
> on the evidence of narcissistic and solipsistic internal criteria,
> or the fact that its rate of progress is retarding, is just plain
> silly, given that its comport with what is standard elsewhere in
> so many areas -- set theory, graph theory, formal language theory,
> algebra, topology and real analysis, pure and applied mathematics
> in general, the theory of computation and programming languages,
> information theory, probability and statistics, systems theory,
> semiotics....
I have deleted some of his more colorful comments -- not because I
disagree with them, but only because I am a bit more polite.
Bottom line: I believe that a lot of hard work has gone into the
development of SUMO. That work should be recognized as useful, but
I would never recommend it as a standard.
John Sowa