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

[pat hayes]

>pat hayes wrote:
>
>>>Pat,
>>>
>>>Just to calm your concerns, I don't believe that ISO or anybody
>>>else will take the Common Logic project away from you
>>
>>
>>John, as I keep reminding y'all, I do not own and am not 
>>responsible for the CL project. That is Mike's baby. I am concerned 
>>with SCL, not CL. So not only can you take CL away from me, I never 
>>had it in the first place.
>
>For the last time, I don't have a baby!
>All I want to see is the work summarized at cl.tamu.edu to proceed through the
>standardization procedure within ISO. I don't care who is the merry leader or
>who is the editor.

Ah, but I do, at least to the extent that it is not going to be me. I 
do not want the SCL effort to be diverted by ANY kind of ISO 
involvement until we manage to get the technical issues worked out. 
And I personally am not willing to get involved with the ISO effort 
at all: so if you want it to happen, please find someone else to do 
it, under a different banner. You might call it 'common logic', for 
example.

>If everyone involved agrees that the current version of the SCL document
>contains the expressiveness that they want to see in the language, then this
>will become the document that is submitted to ISO for review under the project
>name SC32/JTC1 WD 24707 Common Logic.

Submitted by whom? Y'all are free to submit it, when its done, but 
that's your business, not mine. I have made this abundantly clear 
from the first message, Michael.

>Of course, one of the problems with resurrecting the old KIF project from
>oblivion was that it opened the floodgates to requests for new features and
>new extensions, and this led to the group losing focus with respect 
>to requirements.
>As Pat pointed out long ago, there was no agreed upon requirements 
>document for CL
>and no list of open issues so that we could track progress. On the 
>other hand, I haven't seen
>either of these for SCL either...

Mia culpa. But on the other hand, I have never received any responses 
to any of my repeated requests for comments on technical issues other 
than from Chris, Tanel and Murray, and there seems to be little point 
in recording agreements which are made in such a small group.

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes at ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes