Finishing up & EUMAS meeting
Steven Willmott
It seems that (as often happens) we have run out of steam somewhat to ge
things complete (apologies - i have also been mired in other work and not
made much progress!). What I suggest we do is:
* try to finish up soon on the current document to get it final
and at least leave it out there for reference.
* try to pull together some people for a meeting at EUMAS for
fresh progress.
I've asked the EUMAS organisers for space and will inform you of the
outcome asap (FYI the event web pages are here:
http://como.vub.ac.be/eumas2005/index.html)
Regarding finishing up, i've just quickly closed down the remaining TBDs
in the document - see version 07 on the web page:
http://www.x-opennet.org/aif/outputs.php to at leats get a coherent
document. Obviously though there are a lot of things unsaid. What I
suggest is that anybody that has comments / updates / improvements until
the end of this week [the 12th of Nov. lets say] please send them to me
and I will incorporate them. At that point I'll finish up to get a
"version 1" for the web site and we see where we go from there!
thanks,
steve.
Matt South
I think the document holds together reasonably well although it seems a
bit light on the communication and context area. I'd prefer a worked
example of LCC as used to mediate an argumentation based dialogue, in
addition to the syntax definition, however, having read through the
referenced paper I see that this is a substantial undertaking. I
particularly like the observations and rationale comments in section
4.1 - they really define the ideal tone of this document for me.
With regards to the recent additions, I think the section referencing
David Hitchcocks contribution works well.
As I see it, the next step is to go through the exercise of producing
some AIF and then reflecting on whether it's usage and reification fits
with the spirit and/or details of the strawman. This is what we're
currently doing in ASPIC and we should have something to report shortly
for inference, and a little further down the road for dialogue.
I support the creative-commons licensing. I tend to think that we
should allow commercial use, but as Steve says, we can change that
later (most trivially, with an updated version number of the document I
believe). My (very basic) understanding is that the biggest
implications of this current license, for us, is that if someone wanted
to publish our document and charge money for the publication they would
have to ask us, the copyright holders, to do so. If we (all?) agreed
then we could, under the cc license, which is not exclusive, organise a
second specific agreement with the publisher. However, publishers dont
tend to like this sort of thing (they like exclusive copyright) so it's
unlikely to happen.
regards,
Matt
PS I have some very minor typos:
2.2: should ASPIC be in brackets and should the two significant
workshops
be explicitly named?
4.3 (intro): "group" should be "grouped"
7 (bullet point 4) Do you mean XMLS, and not just XML?
Steven Willmott
thanks for your input Matt, will make the updates I can and then finalise.
On the license:
do the things stated in the license and not more. hence - they can modify
and republish with acknowledgement and the same license. But they could
not sell a modified version. If they wanted to they'd have to come to us.
Personally, i also support allowing commercial reuse, but i can see why
some people would not. Hence I suggest for now it stays like this and we
simply consider requests if they were to arise. The main (long term) issue
with it being that many people contributed and in a little while we may
not be able to reach them all to get such agreement.
cheers,
steve.
Matt South
How was EUMAS? Did you get a chance to hook up with Jared and Carlos?
Sanjay and I received an email from Bart Verheij yesterday asking about
the AIF initiative and access to any discussion lists. I've replied to
Bart with the google group discussion url. I wonder if you'd mind
making me an administrator of the group to help manage future requests
of this kind?
regards,
Matt
Steven Willmott
I think bart Joined yesterday though - but its good for the future.
steve.