RE: SUO: RE: Copyright issues
Jim,
I appreciate your comments.
Maybe the OpenCyc proposers can confirm that they see this in the same way?
And indicate whether their attitude to changes is similarly restricted - see
the note below.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: jim.s3@juno.com [mailto:jim.s3@juno.com]
Sent: 05 June 2002 05:23
To: chris_partridge@csi.com
Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: Re: SUO: RE: Copyright issues
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 13:05:33 +0200 "Chris Partridge"
<chris_partridge@csi.com> writes:
>
> Jim,
>
> I read Pat to be also asking a different question related to the
> process
> whereby the OpenCyc document is developed. And this may have an
> impact upon
> people's assessment of the worth of progressing with it.
>
> I presume we can take it as a given that once the document is
> accepted by
> the SUO, the team working on it can change it as it sees fit,
> subject to the
> correct voting procedures.
Correct, but to be more clear, the SUO WG can change it. The editing
team will make interim changes based on an informal consensus process,
but changes won't be officially adopted until the SUO WG approves each
version of the document. The team must be responsive to the group, or
the next version won't pass.
>
> I would appreciate a little more detail on what the process for
> taking the
> document forward might be. I was a little surprised that the SUMO
> proposers
> wanted all development restricted to ONLY suggestions to amendments
> to
> specific axioms. Is there a similar desire on the part of the
> OpenCyc
> proposers?
Adam clarified this.
CP1>I would appreciate a little more detail on what the process for taking
the
>document forward might be. I was a little surprised that the SUMO proposers
>wanted all development restricted to ONLY suggestions to amendments to
>specific axioms.
AP>Just to clarify, the SUMO document is under the control of the group.
The
SUMO proposers have no veto power. Personally, we would welcome not only
changes to specific existing axioms but new ones of course.
CP2> Then it appears that the SUMO proposers have a restricted welcome to
'not only changes to specific existing axioms but new ones of course' rather
than an unrestricted one.
>
> Furthermore, one of OpenCyc's strength's is that it is 'tried and
> tested'
> and we can have a degree of confidence in its internal consistency.
> One
> aspect of this is that any changes to the highest levels have a high
> cost -
> in trying to ensure the internal consistency of the new structure
> and trying
> and testing it. So one could understand if there were to be
> restrictions on
> what was open for discussion. I wonder if any such restrictions are
> envisaged at this stage.
I envision no restrictions on discussions or on proposing changes.
Jim
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.