RE: A NEW FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FORMAL MOTION: was RE: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
Dear Adam,
> I think such a "battle" could actually be extremely
> productive. Conversations about particular axioms is exactly
> what I would
> expect a more focused version of this group to be engaged in.
> Even if
> agreement could not be reached, then we would have a far more
> concrete
> justification for particular, possibly incompatible theories.
> If agreement
> were reached, then we'd have achieved a single standard. No
> matter what,
> we'd still learn something.
I agree (assuming you mean something productive when you put
quotes around "battle").
One of the things a register does for you here is to document
the results. one of the things I have found is that you can go
round the same argument time after time with different people
if you are not careful. Having progress documented, means at
least you should be able to keep track of progress, and not just
revolve.
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: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
> Sent: 09 June 2003 15:31
> To: Eric Peterson; West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; John F. Sowa;
> Mike Pool;
> clegg@cyc.com; John DeOliveira
> Cc: Patrick Cassidy; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: A NEW FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FORMAL MOTION: was RE: SUO:
> Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
>
>
> Eric,
>
> >Even if this group could or should toss out those members that don't
> >really believe in a single SUO, the relatively unified
> remaining group
> >members (including myself) would not be able to let go of their pet
> >content. The content merging process would be a battle at every
> >pair/group of competing axioms.
>
> I think such a "battle" could actually be extremely
> productive. Conversations about particular axioms is exactly
> what I would
> expect a more focused version of this group to be engaged in.
> Even if
> agreement could not be reached, then we would have a far more
> concrete
> justification for particular, possibly incompatible theories.
> If agreement
> were reached, then we'd have achieved a single standard. No
> matter what,
> we'd still learn something.
>
> Adam
>
>