RE: SUO: Further clarifications on the OpenCyc ballot
Chris,
Jay Halcomb gets the credit for the original suggestions about an adequate
pre-specified timescale for discussion and revision of a proposal, before it
becomes a ballot.
I agree with you about abstentions. If a motion passes however slimly, it
could be difficult to get the issue reconsidered, and a new motion
introduced to change it.
So it seems that if one is unhappy with the wording of the present motion,
it could be best to vote No, with a comment regarding openness to a new,
rephrased motion.
Regards,
Phil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> Chris Partridge
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 6:53 AM
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Cc: John DeOliveira; John F. Sowa; Pierluigi Miraglia
> Subject: RE: SUO: Further clarifications on the OpenCyc ballot
>
>
>
> Pierluigi,
>
> Can I second John's suggestion.
> It seems to me that we are more likely to build a consensus following this
> procedure, and I would expect that the goodwill and trust you
> generate from
> being seen trying to build this consensus will be a great help in later
> discussions.
> I would propose that we also agree some kind of provisional timescale for
> these efforts - I seem to recall Phil Jackson making some sensible
> suggestions along these lines.
>
> One point that I am sure John considered, but what is the current rule
> regarding abstentions. For example, what if almost everyone abstains, but
> one person votes yes. Is the motion carried? Maybe it would be
> more sensible
> to vote No - explaining that one intends to vote Yes on the
> revised motion.
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of John
> F. Sowa
> Sent: 06 June 2002 13:38
> To: Pierluigi Miraglia
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org; John DeOliveira
> 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
>
>
>