The communique reads well. Also, its call to action is clear: to
work together to increase the value UOs bring to the world community.
Congratulations to everyone for pulling together. (01)
Mills (02)
On Mar 16, 2006, at 6:57 AM, Cassidy, Patrick J. wrote: (03)
> I agree that the communiqué as it was adopted does not read like great
> literature. That was at least partly a result of the limited time.
> The original suggestion was divided very roughly into background
> premises and conclusions, but the division was lost in the discussion.
> Perhaps when it is reworked there might be a division along those
> lines?
>
> I think that number 8 might come last, and as Mike suggests more
> discussion of the anticipated benefits might come closely before that
> "decision" point.
>
> Pat
>
>
> Patrick Cassidy
> MITRE Corporation
> 260 Industrial Way
> Eatontown, NJ 07724
> Mail Stop: MNJE
> Phone: 732-578-6340
> Cell: 908-565-4053
> Fax: 732-578-6012
> Email: pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Uschold,
> Michael F
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:06 PM
> To: Upper Ontology Summit convention
> Subject: RE: [uos-convene] The communique: what's next?
>
> The communiqué is fine as a starting point. Some comments and ideas
> for
> improving and evolving it.
>
> * It is difficult to read this and glean the 1-3 really key point. For
> example,
> ----the benefits of a shared UO are not clear,
> ----nor is the emphasis on articulating the similarities and
> differences and inter-relationships.
> It is all there, but not highlighted very well.
>
> * It suffers from the fact that no-one had a chance to look it over in
> the large, we mostly focused on each statement on its own, or in
> context of 1-2 others nearby.
> It has some stylistic problems, easily fixed by some
> word-smithing.
> The order of points is fine in the large, but a clear story
> does not really emerge.
>
> * It comes across a bit like motherhood, which may reflect that fact
> that there was not that much that we could all actually agree on. To
> address this, it may be good to clearly state the very important
> points
> of DIS-agreement, and some pros/cons on the issues.
>
> Mike
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
Mills Davis
Managing Director
Project10X
202-667-6400
202-255-6655 cel
202-667-6512 fax
mdavis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|