[Adam Pease]
> I didn't include that specifically on the agenda since it's not
> something that the three upper ontology representatives have yet
> agreed has merit. That would be part of the discussion on Tuesday I
> think. If we were to agree on that goal, and on some methods for
> achieving it, I would think that would be hammered out on Tuesday and
> later presented as part of the joint communique. (01)
see my previous comments on presuppositions of: "the three upper
ontology representatives". The idea that this is something
that these three have to see as 'having merit' before
it will be discussed, does not bode well and I would be interested
in getting a broader basis of response to this general orientation. (02)
If 'the three upper ontology representatives' cannot agree on
this, and preferably now, then I see little point in discussion
as it is a precondition for sensible further debate rather
than (yet another) presentation of one-off marketting choices. (03)
John B.
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit (04)
|