RE: SUO: RE: Charter vs. Consensus
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 3:33 PM
> To: Eric Peterson; Jon Awbrey
> Cc: jim.s3@juno.com; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: SUO: RE: Charter vs. Consensus
>
> Eric,
> No one is "censuring" anyone else, but I believe that axioms are
needed
> to meet the charter. You don't. I don't know if you're asserting
that
> they're not beneficial though so that could still be a reason for
choosing
> one "charter compliant" offering over another.
[ELP] I'm participating in this group on my customer's nickel and am
trying to influence this group in a direction that will support my
customer's needs. My customer needs a common model for integrating
scads of disparate DB's. This is my agenda.
I learned logic and Prolog nearly two decades ago and continue to revel
in the miracle of writing specifications that are also code. I've even
contemplated celebrating Frege's birthday and I glory in what FOL is
going to do for us in the coming years. But two decades later, the
marketplace still isn't ready to embrace anything close to full FOL.
I claim, therefore, that a DL-based upper ontology has by far the best
claim on being our initial version-one deliverable. If this is true,
DL-ness is no detriment to being considered as a possible starting-point
for our work.
If not true, choosing an upper ontology with a *long* track record in
DARPA's marketplace sounds to me like the best foundation on which we
may add non-DL axioms.
Your small group has doing something really amazing in getting the
notice and some degree of blessing from the ontological community. But
you haven't paid your dues yet. When DARPA places their loving arms
around SUMO for a decade or so, let's talk more about why you don't
think OpenCyc would be a good starting point for the SUO's work.
FWIW,
-Eric
> I do agree with you that we should have a charter and follow it. I
> take
> much of the controversy in this group to have at its root that
different
> groups of people have different goals. Rather than impeding each
other, I
> think it would be much better to codify charters that express the
goals of
> a small number of groups and then have this group split up, amicably.
>
> Adam
>
> At 12:57 PM 6/25/2003 -0400, Eric Peterson wrote:
>
>
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 11:01 AM
> > > To: Eric Peterson
> > > Cc: jim.s3@juno.com; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > Subject: Re: Charter vs. Consensus
> > >
> > > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> > >
> > > Eric,
> > >
> > > This brings up yet another facet of the objective of achieving
> >consensus,
> > > as it begins from a state of disconsensus, namely, that many of
the
> >words
> > > and phrases of the charter, or scope and purpose document, have
just
> >as
> > > many different ways of being read from different perspectives in
this
> > > (dis-)community as any of the other words and phrases that we have
> > > to discuss in the content-oriented and method-oriented subtasks.
> >
> >[ELP] Language can be tightened down. Clarity can certainly be an
> >iterative process sometimes.
> >
> > > And though referring to the prior compact certainly helps to
> > > reduce uncertainty from time to time, it cannot, in the
> > > absence of consensual interpretations, achiving which
> > > is a part of the original problem, reduce it all that
> > > much, nor ever absolutely, when it comes to that.
> >
> >[ELP] Aren't you arguing against all codified law and governance?
> >
> >
> > > All subcommunities, some of the time, and some
> > > subcommunities, all of the time, would like
> > > to appoint themselves the sole-sufficient
> > > interpreters of the charter, but there
> > > is no reason to expect that they will
> > > happen in a free and open society.
> >
> >[ELP] If it is a point that really matters, we can vote on it. And
all
> >our votes need to be reflected somewhere.
> >
> >But when calling for concreteness and specificity in criticisms of
Cyc,
> >I was expecting references to more ontologically egregious sins than
not
> >having SUMO's way-cool axioms.
> >
> >With Adam, I was simply making the observation that it didn't seem
fair
> >to me to publicly censure Cycorp for being charter compliant under a
> >reasonable interpretation of the Charter. I certainly wasn't
attempting
> >to Mirandize him prior to incarceration.
> >
> > >
> > > So what Jim said initially continues to be apt.
> > > The question that remains is how to achieve this
> > > consensus in a way that is genuine and not forced.
> >
> >[ELP] Jon, you seem to want to reinvent long-standing methods of
> >committee organization. I don't have time to read your papers on
> >consensus building. I prefer starting with Roberts and fixing it
when
> >it breaks. That is already our de facto practice.
> >
> >BTW, where are you getting the "F"-word from in your last paragraph?
A
> >charter is consensus and far from force.
> >
> >FWIW,
> >
> >-Eric
> >
> > >
> > > Jon Awbrey
> > >
> > > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> > >
> > > Eric Peterson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Moreover,
> > > >
> > > > I was told that the charter was a passed motion. If so, it is
> >binding
> > > > and is amendable only by a 2/3 majority (RRO 10th Edition p. 12,
> >line
> > > 25).
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: jim.s3@juno.com [mailto:jim.s3@juno.com]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 6:54 AM
> > > > > To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > > > Subject: SUO: Charter vs. Consensus
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > All,
> > > > >
> > > > > Consensus is what matters. The PAR Scope and Purpose really
> >doesn't
> > > > > matter that much. It shouldn't prevent us from doing
anything, or
> > > > > force us to do anything else. If and when we finish a
document
> > > > > with enough consensus to pass an IEEE ballot, if it doesn't
> > > > > match the Scope and Purpose, we simple amend it or submit
> > > > > a new one.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jim
> > >
> > > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o