Re: A NEW FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FORMAL MOTION: was RE: SUO: Re:SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
Eric,
I completely agree with Matthew.
When I said that I would second your motion
to reaffirm the goals stated in the SUO charter,
that is what I meant. This motion goes so far
beyond those goals that I cannot accept it.
For the record, I have pieced together Matthew's
remarks into a continuous passage below.
There is no need for me to say anything more.
John
_____________________________________________________
ELP: a standards committee is about the most ill suited body...
MW: Apart from all the others (if consensus is your objective).
I am a standards veteran, and it is not true that a de facto
standard is required before it can be blessed.
The more we do apart, the more work we will have to do eventually
to bring it back together, apart from doing a lot of the same stuff
multiple times.
Ontologies are unlikely to get serious air time until they are of
sufficient quality, so we have a chicken and egg situation here.
This is one of the things a body like the SUO can really do in
establishing something that has quality so that it does get used.
All the IT related standards groups I know about are as much about
research and collaboration as they are about standardisation. The
reason for the standardisation emphasis is that the results only
have significant value if there is widespread consensus.
I don't think there is any ontology that is good enough yet to be
considered best of anything. That is a big part of the problem.
Well we could do this, but it would be largely irrelevant. For starters
you would have to pick either a 3D or a 4D foundation, and then you
immediately lose about half the people. Now wouldn't that be clever.