SUO: Re: Consensus?
John,
This sounds good to me also.
One question though. Can we request that Adam and John D. put in the SUMO
and OpenCyc motions a statement that the respective groups will collaborate
with the group working on the joint library of modules project? In that way
the various motions are connected to each other.
Robert
----- Original Message -----
From: "sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
To: "Robert E. Kent" <rekent@ontologos.org>; "Adam Pease"
<apease@ks.teknowledge.com>; "SUO" <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>;
"Patrick Cassidy" <pcassidy@bellatlantic.net>; "Jay Halcomb"
<jhalcomb8@attbi.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 3:53 PM
Subject: Consensus?
> Pat, Jay, Adam, and Robert,
>
> With the recent flurry of notes, I believe we
> can see light at the end of the email tunnel.
>
> 1. Pat made the observation that the joint
> motion is actually a proposal for a new
> ontology, which is based on, but different
> from both:
>
> >> The third ontology will have mappings to SUMO and OpenCyc
> >> and will present an opportunity to test the utility of
> >> the IFF theory for organizing multiple ontologies,
> >> and an opportunity for those who would prefer not to
> >> use either SUMO or OpenCyc to try to create something
> >> better than either (whether better for some specific
> >> purpose or better in being able to map more precisely
> >> to more ontologies).
> >
> >
> 2. Jay supported that idea and suggested that we call it
> SUM -- Standard Upper Meta-ontology. But we should
> probably get the letter L in there for "Library".
> We can leave that as a challenge for the acronym
> hackers.
>
> 3. Then Adam proposed that we all support joint motion
> as well as the SUMO motion, but if so, I suggest we
> also ask John D. to reintroduce the OpenCyc motion:
>
> > If this is the intent, and you'll vote for the
> > SUMO motion as well as the combined motion, then
> > I would be willing to support the combined motion
> > also, but only if you'll also endorse the SUMO motion.
>
> 4. Finally, Robert strongly endorsed the joint motion
> and pledged to work closely with both the SUMO and
> OpenCyc groups.
>
> Summary: Let's take advantage of this willingness
> to cooperate by all of us agreeing to support three
> motions -- one for OpenCyc, one for SUMO, and one for
> the joint library using a methodology based on IFF.
> Then all three candidate projects (OpenCyc, SUMO,
> and IFF) would have equal status, and they would all
> be partners in developing a joint library of modules.
>
> John Sowa