Re: SUO: An SUO 'Bookshelf' of Results
At 10:59 AM -0800 15/3/01, Michael Uschold wrote:
>Everyone,
>
>I have not been following the details of the triadicity discussion, but I was
>delighted to see Pat Hayes' detailed explication of it. I'm guessing
>that it is
>to a significant extent, a condensed and synthesized view of this thread so
>far. When this issue dies down, and there is reasonable agreement on things,
>including what to disagree on, then it would be possible to record this as an
>'official' outcome of the SUO group.
>
>I propose that a kind of SUO bookshelf be set up on our web pages. It would
>contain detailed technical summaries similar to what Pat has produced. This
>would be an
>
> EFFECTIVE VEHICLE FOR DISSEMINATION OF THE
> SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS WE HAVE MADE ON MANY FRONTS,
>
>which to date is virtually inaccessible, buried in the discussion archives.
>One can think of this as real-time knowledge mining of our archives.
>This would affect many folk:
>
>1. The world at large can see our progress to date.
>2. Newcomers can much more easily get up to speed.
>3. Regulars can skip the details and be assured of a good summary, in time.
>4. All participants can be more efficient in the time they spend reading SUO,
> being able to keep up to speed on things on their own time, without fear
> of missing key information.
I warmly agree with Mike's proposal. This can be the starting point
for the methodology I suggested, which seems to have a broad
consensus:
At 6:53 PM -0500 13/3/01, Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I wrote (in a
personal message):
>Nicola,
>
> OK. This all sounds fine. I hear considerable consensus. I believe
>Adam supports your approach, or at least is supportive of trying it, or
>working with people who are pursuing it. I suggest you recruit people to
>start working on this approach.
Rather than recruiting people, I believe that the methodology I
suggested can be natrually implemented by using Mike's "bookshelf" as
a tool to record agreements and disagreements, and therefore managing
possible "branches" in the SUO ontology. To do that, it is necessary
that somebody volunteers in drafting the structure of this bookshelf.
I suggest that each main entry (issue) should be articulated in
sub-issues, and for each sub-issues one or more answers are recorded,
with a list of supporters and opponents.
Once we have the bookshelf structure implemented, we can leave the
actual maintenance of it open to the SUO subscriber's contributions,
according to the lines Mike suggested:
>1. Discussion threads take place in the usual fashion.
>
>2. When things settle down a bit, and points of agreement are reached, these
>should be summarized and fed back to the group. This would also include points
>where people agree to disagree.
>
>3. When the main participants in the discussion reach agreement on the
>summary, then it could be submitted to the overall group for placement
>on the 'bookshelf'. The assumption is that things DO go on the bookshelf.
>I don't think we want a formal voting process for this. The idea of going to
>the group at large, is to see if there are any further suggestions or
>improvements to the document.
>
>4. We announce the existence of each new entry to the bookshelf to a SUO
>interest group which is only intersted in the outcomes and timely
>announements,
>rather than the day to day discussions. We may already have such list, I do
>not know whether the creation of SUO sub-lists some months ago, actually
>worked.
>I would hope or expect that in many cases, these summaries could be the basis
>for quality technical papers that are publishable.
Yes. Moreover, each bookshelf entry should point to technical papers (if any).
-- Nicola
---------------------------------
Nicola Guarino
National Research Council phone: +39 O49 8295751
LADSEB-CNR fax: +39 O49 8295763
Corso Stati Uniti, 4 email: Nicola.Guarino@ladseb.pd.cnr.it
I-35127 Padova
Italy
http://www.ladseb.pd.cnr.it/infor/ontology/ontology.html
(***updated 22/2/2001 ***)