Re: SUO: Further clarifications on the OpenCyc ballot
John --
I don't think you want to propose that everyone abstain. Given our
experience, including the history of rulings, wouldn't it be the case that
if two people broke ranks and voted for the proposal, and one voted
against, the motion would pass in the face of otherwise unanimous
abstention?
Doug McDavid
IBM Business Innovation Services
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
mcdavid@us.ibm.com
"Imagine all the people ... living life in peace."
"John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>@majordomo.ieee.org on 06/06/2002 04:37:54
AM
Please respond to "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
Sent by: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
To: Pierluigi Miraglia <miraglia@cyc.com>
cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org, John DeOliveira <johnd@cyc.com>
Subject: Re: SUO: Further clarifications on the OpenCyc ballot
Pierluigi,
Since there wasn't enough time to discuss how the ballot should be
formulated and the rules prevent retraction and resubmission,
I suggest the following procedure:
1. Dispose of the earlier motion by recommending that everyone
abstain.
2. Submit a revised motion that (a) overrides the previous one
and (b) clearly states the conditions along the lines of your
recent note.
This issue illustrates an inconvenience with email voting. If we
were all together in one room, point #1 could be settled quickly by
a voice vote, and a subcommittee could draft a motion for point #2.
PM> 1. We are not proposing a single standard package consisting of
> OpenCyc, CycL, and CycML. Each of these 3 is proposed as a subject
> of further work by this group. By this we mean that, at some level,
> we'd be happy if any or all of these 3 were developed into one or
> more IEEE standards.
This comment indicates why the current motion needs to be revised,
because the motion on the floor sounds as if the proposed candidate
would include all three.
The most important contribution from OpenCyc is the content of the
ontology. Some language is necessary to represent that content, and
the simplest approach is to adopt the current language CycL. But it
would be difficult to relate OpenCyc to SUMO if the two are in totally
different languages. Therefore, there should be some plan to relate
CycL to KIF, and a collaboration with the CL group would be the normal
way to do so.
Therefore, the revised motion should propose the OpenCyc ontology
and a proposal to work with the CL committee to relate CycL to the
CL semantics.
The point about CycML could be deferred until more information is
available.
John Sowa