SUO: Re: Re: Unanimous Consent
Precisely so, Jon. I think that we've many of us said these similar things
at one time or another, and we always return to them when a proposal is made
(recall the discussion about the CycL language when that proposal was mae).
That is why I think that developing clearer acceptance criteria, upfront,
for specifying these various targets is important, when it comes to working
documents for the group. Specifically, developing specification criteria for
terminologies, languages, and logic(s). I would hope the IFF folks should
have some specific thoughts about this.
Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Awbrey" <jawbrey@att.net>
To: "Jay Halcomb" <jhalcomb8@attbi.com>
Cc: "Pierre Grenon" <pierre.grenon@ifomis.uni-leipzig.de>; "West, Matthew R
SITI-ITPSIE" <matthew.west@shell.com>; <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 11:02
Subject: SUO: Re: Unanimous Consent
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> Jay, Matthew, Pierre, SUO WG,
>
> Many people, present writer included, have observed that the criteria
> appropriate to different kinds of ontology applications and projects,
> all of them nonetheless falling under the rather large tent of our
> scope and purpose document, may be radically different.
>
> In particular, I have pointed to the differences in working methodology
> and goals of research oriented ontologies and, for the lack of a better
> name, so-called commonsense ontologies.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> Jay Halcomb wrote:
> >
> > Pierre said:
> >
> > "Never the less, it seems to me that this group would be better off
> > if proposed material was judged on criteria similar to those by which
> > the final product shall be evaluated, rather than dependent upon
> > pleasant email exchanges."
> >
> > Pierre, I agree with this view, which was the essential point of my last
> > e-mail -- getting more specific about such criteria for working
documents.
> >
> > Jay
Etc.