[SCL] Re: Common Logic status with respect to standards

[Harry Delugach]

On Sunday, November 2, 2003, at 07:01  AM, John F. Sowa wrote in 
response to Pat Hayes:

> Pat,
>
> Just to calm your concerns, I don't believe that ISO or anybody
> else will take the Common Logic project away from you and from
> people that you know and sometimes trust (or not) such as
> Chris, Tanel, Michael, and me.

No, but having sat through several editing meetings, ISO will have 
editing comments beyond editorial notes and formatting. Is it the wish 
of this group that I submit these comments to SCL for their input? And 
what if L8 (the US committee) or ISO don't go along? Creating a 
standard at the ISO level involves compromises much as the SCL (and CL) 
groups have already faced. I am willing to serve as "go-between" as 
long as SCL is willing to have me make some of these decisions on my 
own at these meetings.

I am aware that many of you don't know me. You're free to browse my web 
site if you want to find out more about me. If I'm to be the editor as 
far as ISO is concerned, then I'm intend to be among those you know and 
trust.  If it turns out that L8/ISO's goals and SCL's goals can't be 
reconciled, then some difficult choices will have to be made, by all of 
us.

>
> A much greater danger is that we will be ignored unless we
> maintain contact with groups that are better connected with
> centers of power (de facto or de jure).  The W3C is a big
> de facto power, and ISO is the biggest de jure power.

If SCL is indeed willing to be ignored by L8/ISO in order to pursue 
other goals, that is important for me to know. I hope that is not the 
case.

>
>> CL seemed to have run into the sand, so (as you know)
>> I am slightly concerned that SCL not be directly identified
>> with CL.
>
> ISO didn't run it into the sand.  They were waiting for us
> to give them a document to review, which we never did.

That is still the status of CL as far as L8/ISO is concerned. For the 
record, they have no idea what SCL is, they are still under the 
impression that there's only one project.

>
>> Clearly, ISO is a seriously clunky organization....
>
> All organizations are clunky.  And judging from the results
> produced by the SCL group so far, it is hard to see any
> improvement over anything that ISO does.

Except that ISO's process is much more organized and a bit more formal. 
That does not mean that it is technically more rigorous, however.

>
>> ... I am far more concerned that these insights be adequately
>> captured in an SCL exposition than I am in >obtaining
>> international consensus: if such consensus is unobtainable
>> then I would prefer that the ISO process be aborted.

This statement is of great concern to me. If SCL is more interested in 
its own consensus than in the international community's consensus, then 
the ISO process will be aborted, and quickly. I should point out that 
the ISO Working Group WG2 voted CL as a new work item because they were 
interested in its success as an international standard. That would be 
my primary goal as editor.

>
> Genesereth, Gruninger, and I have been talking to the ANSI
> and ISO people for over ten years.  They are convinced that
> we know logic better than they do and that we could, if we
> sat down and produced a document, produce a good one.
>
> The only editing ISO would ask us to do (via Harry) would be
> to add the ISO boilerplate on the front and to include the
> typical ISO sections for a glossary, references, intro,
> scope statement, etc.  All of those sections would be
> useful and none of them would in any way modify the syntax
> or semantics of CL.
>

The statement that ISO would only ask us to add ISO boilerplate is not 
true! ISO will want to know the relationship between CL and any other 
possibly relevant (or seemingly relevant, e.g., Z) ISO standards or 
proposed standards. They will also develop point-by-point comments on 
each draft, organized by the country from which the comment came. If 
it's the position of the SCL group that ISO has no business making 
technical comments or changes, then I would suggest there is little or 
no chance of SCL ever becoming an ISO standard at all.

A better strategy would be for SCL to identify experts in various 
countries who are willing to contact their national bodies (which for 
the US is L8) and offer their services as experts to the ISO WG2. The 
members of WG2 won't pretend to know the full technical merit of the 
SCL drafts, but they will expect to get opinions from people outside of 
the SCL group itself. I already have been given some suggested people 
to contact in other countries.

I may be wrong about ISO's attitude or SCL's. If so, I stand ready to 
be corrected. I have only the insight gained from having sat in on a 
complete 5-day session of WG2 -- that is my main source of knowledge 
about ISO and L8. But I am a quick learner, and I think I have conveyed 
an accurate sense of their attitude.

Harry

-- 
  Harry S. Delugach
  -------------------
  Associate Professor
  Computer Science Dept., Technology Hall N-351
  University Of Alabama In Huntsville
  Huntsville AL 35899 U.S.A.
  voice: (256) 824-6614   fax: (256) 824-5093
  delugach at cs.uah.edu
  http://www.cs.uah.edu/~delugach