RE: SUO: Unanimous consent
Dear Pierre,
See comments below.
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: Pierre Grenon [mailto:pierre.grenon@ifomis.uni-leipzig.de]
> Sent: 28 August 2003 13:10
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: SUO: Unanimous consent
>
>
>
> Robert Spillers wrote:
> >
> > SUO
> > I move that Matthew West's motion be accepted by unanimous consent.
> >
>
> I object. What's going on in this group? We just had two
> years of long and
> exhausting battles for voting on a couple of proposals which
> were granted
> examination under very stringent conditions.
MW: Yes, part of my uncertainty is about what process we are now
operating, given that there seemed to be some disatisfaction with
the previous process.
We could now be operating:
1. Propose it and it becomes part of the corpus to be worked with.
2. Follow the process that SUMO and IFF went through.
I don't mind particularly.
>
> With all due respect, it is not clear whether Matthew's
> motion fit requirements
> previously imposed and I see no reason why we should weaken
> the process
> _prior_to_ examination of the material. From what I have
> seen, the porposal
> concerns a very small ontology which mostly stands as a
> strcutured vocabulary
> with some taxonomic constraints. It's actually a browsable glossary.
MW: To be precise it is a data model.
> I remember some very harsh words from different parties
> concerning the need of
> axioms for an ontology. This porposal does not fit the bill.
MW: Taxonomic constraints are still axioms. But I am not suggesting
that the material is a finished article, just some starting material.
What I am seeking is that working this into something that is part of
what the SUO delivers is recognised as a stream of work in this group.
The current deliverable is already being standardised through ISO (as
a data model) so it hardly needs endorsement here as it stands.
> Moreover, although it is interesting to have a 4d ontology,
> it is yet unclear
> to me how this particular porposal does justice to this paradigm.
MW: What evidence are you looking for?
>
> I request due time for examination (and two weeks is not
> long!) and that
> procedural issues be put aside during that time. We examine
> the work, we
> discuss and we cast motivated votes. This process may seem
> heavy but it may be
> the only feature of this group which comes close to the
> activity of a working
> group.
MW: I have no problem with that.
>
> Pierre
>