SUO: 03 Jun 2002 -- Curious, Yellow
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
EL = Erik Larson
EL: BTW, why is *this* an ontology topic? Seems like this sort of
discussion (i.e. what constitutes good criteria for choosing an
ontology) is an SUO topic. (Don't mistake me for having much of
a preference here -- I'm just curious).
Erik,
History of the thread:
http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg08476.html
http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg08478.html
http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg08486.html
http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg08507.html
Having made the hopelessly naive mistake of actually trying to read
the SUMO documents again, I tried to get some clarification as to
how SUMO set theory compared with its claimed ancestor or indeed
any standard set theory. The SUMO representatives, along with
an assortment of strange bedfellows, ignored the question,
then changed the subject, then suggested that the new
subject be marginalized to the Ontology Sublist.
If it were the first time I had seen this
strategy, I would probably be shocked.
As it is, I am only surprised at the
conspiracy of interests that arose
on all sides to avoid the issue.
I am working on a hypothesis.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o