Re: limitations of classification systems, fiction, lack of ontological commitment

Thanks, David — your clarification is exactly how I understood it too.

Paola, a few concrete points so we’re all aligned:

  * The NotebookLM already contains the full disclaimers, links back to
    every CG source, and you’ve had editor access since the day it was
    created. it’s not “my” repo or W3C’s: it’s a study aid so newcomers
    don’t have to chase PDFs across dozens of threads.

  * The CG routinely cites external references (Quine, ontology PDFs,
    etc.). Consolidating them doesn’t change scope; it’s the only way to
    keep pace with the materials you share. If anything needs updating,
    you can edit directly or ping me — I’ll do it immediately.

  * On the “scope” question: I shared the MVCIC orchestration method +
    specs on Nov 10. A week later (Nov 17) the “AI-driven Web Standards
    Specification” CG was proposed and by Nov 28 it was launched. Both
    posts
    (https://www.w3.org/community/blog/2025/11/17/proposed-group-ai-driven-web-standards-specification-community-group/
    and https://www.w3.org/community/aiwss/) cite the exact mandate
    we’ve already been discussing here. If we’re going to school each
    other on attribution, let’s at least acknowledge when work already
    in the AI-KR threads is used to justify a new CG. That’s the fair
    way to keep provenance intact.

  * If there are specific terms or KR artefacts you want captured inside
    the CG tools, tell me exactly what format you prefer, and I’ll put
    them there with the same references already logged in the repo.

In short: everything is fully attributed, open, and cross-linked. Let’s 
keep the energy on the substance, not on where the files sit.

Daniel.