Re: SUO: RE: Charter vs. Consensus
Title:
Adam
See comments below.
Bob
Adam Pease wrote:
Bob,
The choice isn't amongst extremes. A proliferation of a large number of
ontology content standards would be equivalent to no standard at all.
RGS: This sounds very much like my original
comment. If you are not agreeing then I fail to see your point.
I'm puzzled
by your line of reasoning on this though since you've advocated that no
content standard be "privileged" which seems to me to be exactly the case
of having multiple standards.
RGS: My position is that no candidate
document should enjoy any privilege with respect to "the intent of developing
it into a final SUO document". I believe those are the words in your motion
that was recently defeated. In time, one or more documents may attract a
consensus. Then that document has earned some privilege. It may be more
than one document - it seems to me that both IFF and John's lattice do not
(necessarily) conflict with well formed upper level content
However, we need not be at the extreme of one standard to cover the broad
notion of an "ontology standard" or at the other extreme of a multitude
of standards. The problem here is the different people have radically different
visions for what an "ontology standard" looks like. Some want a content
standard like SUMO or OpenCyc. Others want an approach to registering multiple
ontological approaches. I don't see how those visions are reconcilable
so it seems preferable, as well as more amicable, to me, to acknowledge
the differences in opinion, and stop trying to convince each other.
Adam
RGS: Consensus is about persuasion;
trying to convince a large majority of the members to adopt a particular
view. I don't believe the approaches you mention are irreconcilable. What
slows progress is attempting to force decisions on the basis of a closely
divided vote. Regardless of which side wins the vote, something important
is lost.
At 12:53 PM 6/25/2003 -0700, Robert Spillers wrote:
Adam,
Then users will have their choice of which (IEEE) standard to use. No standard
at all is better than a bad one - multiple standards are worse.
Bob
Adam Pease wrote:
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.
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