|
Dear
Bob,
It seems to me
that your argument is not with the document, but that it has not been properly
implemented, which if you did not raise an objection you might have a case for,
since it would then have passed. At the moment of course it has not passed, so
there is no reason for anything to conform to it.
Matthew West
Streamline Business Information Architect for
Supply Chain Management
Shell Information Technology International
Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934
4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
Matthew,
Thank you for the information.
In the document to which you refer http://suo.ieee.org/SUO/SUO-Procedures/Documents/SUO-Development-GuidelinesV1Final.txt
at :
5.1 Stage 1 –Approval
...
If the motion is passed the work becomes authorised by the
Standard Upper Ontology Working Group.
Note: The motions for existing starter documents are
considered here to be Approval motions.
The Standard Upper Ontology Working Group Chair shall
maintain a publicly available and numbered list of motions
that pass as resolutions of the Standard Upper Ontology
Working Group.
I interpret this to mean that the list of
documents on the SUO web site http://suo.ieee.org/SUO/SUO-Procedures/documents.html
under
the heading Resolutions ( http://suo.ieee.org/SUO/resolutions.html ) are the "list of motions that pass as
resolutions of the Standard Upper OntologyWorking Group" mentioned
above. If so, then I do object.
The text quoted above links
these documents and categorizes the June 2003 SUMO motion a passed and
approved motion. It failed. If I am misinterpreting your meaning,
please advise me how.
One way to handle this is to simply not list the
SUMO motion as approved or alternatively note in the listing that the result
of the vote is in dispute and the motion's final status will be posted when
the dispute is
resolved.
Bob
Bob
West, Matthew R
SITI-ITABEI wrote:
Dear
Bob,
I understand
your objection to that, but that is not what is being asked
here.
It is perhaps
a littel confusing that Jim give the link to the page on which the
procedures
documents can
be found rather than the document itself. The document can be found
at
for a text
version or:
for a pdf
version.
SUMO is not
mentioned in either of them.
Matthew West
Streamline Business Information Architect
for Supply Chain Management
Shell Information Technology International
Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20
7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet:
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
Mathew,
I object to
the inclusion of the June 2003 SUMO motion (Motion #2 on the referenced
site) as an adopted motion. The motion failed.
An
acceptable change would be to remove this motion from the list of adopted
motions. As you know, I am pursuing this matter through the IEEE
channels. These processes move
slowly.
Bob
West, Matthew R SITI-ITABEI wrote:
Dear Bob,
Could you indicate please what changes I would need to make to the document to overcome
your objection?
Matthew West
Streamline Business Information Architect for Supply Chain Management
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Spillers [mailto:skydog@PACBELL.NET]
Sent: 25 May 2004 16:48
To: jim.s3@JUNO.COM; SUO
Subject: SUO: Final Procedures Documents
Jim,
You wrote:
I don't see where you are refering to. What URL is it at?
I am referring to the document
http://suo.ieee.org/SUO/SUO-Procedures/documents.html
which is the document you referenced in your email of 05/23/04, which
asked:
Are there any objections to this version of the
referenced procedures document.
Yes, I object.
Bob
|