RE: SUO: Re: Charter vs. Consensus
John;
Not too long ago you were advocating a lattice of competing ontologies
as the end product of this effort. More recently you have verbally
aligned yourself with the goal of merging into a single ontology and
have claimed that is implicit in the charter.
The former John S. was going native and far from the bounds of the
charter. The latter worries me a lot less.
If I had more confidence that I knew who you really are I might feel a
lot less need for procedure.
If I had your sway on this group I wouldn't want to be slowed down by
such procedures either. These procedures are more for the protection of
the little guy.
FWIW,
-Eric
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 1:46 PM
> To: Eric Peterson; John F. Sowa; jim.s3@juno.com; standard-upper-
> ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: Re: Charter vs. Consensus
>
> Eric,
>
> The charter is the equivalent of a research proposal, not
> a formal military spec that must be followed down to the
> individual line items.
>
> > But back to the charter, there is no definition in MW-3 that
> > says that a charter is a new-age feel-good ignorable document.
> > RRO-X clearly respects charters as codified consensus.
>
> The charter is indeed a consensus of the broad outlines of
> what the project is supposed to accomplish. And as Jim has
> said, all three of the documents -- IFF, SUMO, and OpenCyc --
> fall within that scope.
>
> But it is not only a waste of time, it is counterproductive
> to do legalistic wrangling on issues that cannot be firmly
> decided until the project is much closer to completion.
>
> Bottom line: Let's do the real work -- not the legalistic
> make work.
>
> John