Re: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
Eric,
If we could really get everyone to agree, I would be
willing to withdraw motion #2 in favor of a new motion.
Following are my major concerns:
1. Modularity and extensibility are essential.
2. A methodology of the kind that IFF provides
(but not necessary the full IFF theory) must
be available to relate and combine the modules.
3. SUMO and OpenCyc are partners on an equal
footing (i.e., no special motion for SUMO
that makes it different from OpenCyc).
4. Other projects, such as the ones on Bateman's
list, should be able to join the coaltion if
and when they wish to do so.
5. A privileged upper ontology as a "reference
model" could be admitted as a desirable goal,
but the framework should accommodate legacy
systems and pragmatic alternatives that are
not 100% compatible with the reference model.
6. I find Matthew West's arguments in favor of
a registry compelling. I cannot see any
reason for not having a registry or something
like it. But if the word "registry" is an
obstacle to agreement, I would be happy to call
it anything else -- provided it supports the
functions that Matthew believes it should.
As far as I can see, these six points are compatible
with the current wording of motion #2, but if anybody
finds it important to adopt different names for the
same functions, I don't really care.
John