RE: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
John, maybe there is an agreeable solution:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 10:33 AM
> To: Mike Pool
> Cc: Patrick Cassidy; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
>
>
> Mike,
>
> > Please spare me the false dilemma and histrionics.
>
> This is not a false dilemma, and it is "history", not
> histrionics. Please look at the SUO archives to see what
> was happening. All that discussion is on the record.
>
> Without a joint effort, we go back to the status of a few
> months ago, which was a moribund email list with ZERO
> collaboration among the three groups.
[ELP] I would vote for a simple joint effort, but the language of motion
#2 entirely avoids talk of a collaboration goal. And it adds the
controversial registry.
I tried to get a simple clause added to motion #2 that expressly
specified a goal of collaboration you said that it would blow apart the
coalition.
Adam, would your team leave if motion #2 stated that it's chief goal was
a third merged ontology that seamlessly coalesced and improved the two
content ontologies?
John D., Cathy, Fritz, would Cyc leave the table?
John S., would IFF leave the table?
And since the registry is just an afterthought, and one that is causing
some of us to leave the table, I respectfully ask that you take it out
of the motion.
If you can think
> of any other way to get the SUO Working Group to do some
> actual work, please suggest it.
[ELP] Please see above.
<snip>
[ELP] Sincerely,
-Eric