RE: A NEW FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FORMAL MOTION: was RE: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:31 AM
> 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.
[ELP] I do agree that much would be learned from such a process.
But I think we could both learn much and get a standard by using the "de
facto" resolution. We would still need to thrash through a long list of
issues. But it would be short enough to get a first draft in a far
shorter time.
The content from the ontologies not selected would be a treasure trove
of alternatives for when the selected ontology had axioms deemed to be
unsuitable.
And those involved in the ontological efforts not selected would be
among the most valuable participants in validated the selected
ontologies. I would think that they would be the most qualified and the
most likely to give due diligence to proving the standard.
FWIW,
-Eric
>
> Adam