RE: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
Dear Eric,
Why do you think it is contentious to manage the content of the
lattice of theories? (which is all that using a registry means
in practice?)
Please also note that SUMO and OpenCyc are not the only potential
contributions.
If a single ontology is the "right" answer, putting the constituent
ontologies into a lattice and asking questions about the differences
is probably the best way to bring that about. Alternatively it may
also bring about understanding as to why there should be more than
one.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Peterson [mailto:epeterson@CCAAVA.com]
> Sent: 04 June 2003 17:28
> To: John F. Sowa; Mike Pool; apease@ks.teknowledge.com; clegg@cyc.com;
> John DeOliveira
> Cc: Patrick Cassidy; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: 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
>
>