[topicmapmail] Summary to date of "context" and "bottom up"

[Bernard VATANT]

<JP>
I have name-tagged all the posts in this series for the following reason:
the posts illustrate a collaborative process in progress.  Along the way,
we
see chuncks of agreement, and chunks of disagreement.  Where we need to go
from here is toward convergence.  IMHO, we do not yet have enough body mass
involved to get there.  I am wondering if we shouldn't copy this post into
other groups, e.g. Standard Upper Ontology, the PORT list, and others, as a
means of opening up the meme pool.  For myself, I am beginning to imagine
an
ontology growing out of this thread, one that encodes all arguements, and
that enables the search for convergence.
</JP>

<BV>
Very interesting initiative, Jack, from a technical viewpoint.
OTOH, the "need for convergence" is something I wonder about.
I figure that is the way many things work in the web community ( I really
don't know, after what Martin wrote, if I may use the word community at
all ) I read with more attention the W3C homepage and understand that is
the way they do it : seeking unformally for a consensus, a convergence.
I'm not used, given my cultural background, to that : I have to know where
is the power in a community, and how it's distributed. Who sets the rules
(legislature), what are the rights and duties of every actor. What are the
decision processes and so on.
You say "we" need a convergence. I ask the you the same question I
addressed Martin previously.
What do you mean by "we" ?
</BV>