RE: A NEW FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FORMAL MOTION: was RE: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
Matthew,
At 04:16 PM 6/9/2003 +0100, West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
>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").
yes, that's right
>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.
This sounds very useful and reasonable, caveat my previous comments on the
emphasis put on tools to develop the standard vs. standards content itself.
Adam
>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
> >
> >