Re: SUO: Further clarifications on the OpenCyc ballot
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 07:37:54AM -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
>
> 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.
John, I respectfully disagree on the matter of textual interpretation.
I believe my clarification is clearer than the ballot of this point
(sorry for the self-congratulatory bit), but the ballot's wording does
not commit a consenting agent to developing the 3 as a package -- or in
fact *any* of the 3.
I was told that the current ballot could not simply be retracted, and
that in any case votes have been and are being cast already. In order to
keep the procedural mess at a minimum, therefore, I'll let the current
ballot stand. Also really, I can't take so much time.
If the ballot passes, regardless of the number of abstentions, we should
immediately prepare motions reflecting the seemingly widespread consensus
that the 3 items proposed in the ballot belong to separate standard
development streams (PARs, whatever). If no one else presents such a
motion, I will.
If the motion is rejected, I will present a new motion incorporating my
and John DeOliveira's clarification in such a manner as would probably
allay the concern(s) expressed by Sowa, Halcomb, Jackson, Partridge,
etc.
Best,
> 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
>
--
- - - - * * * * * - - - - * * * * * - - - - * * * * * - - - -
Pierluigi Miraglia Cycorp, Inc.
Ontological Engineer 3721 Executive Center Dr.
(512) 514-2988 Austin, TX 78731