Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: SUO: Ballot Comment


John,
   We have a PAR that states what we're trying to achieve.  We all agree 
that having a methodology for achieving the goals of the PAR would be a 
good thing.  However, although you stated this more mildly than some 
others, you seem to be saying that we should halt progress until we can 
agree on a methodology, and yet, no one has yet provided a 
methodology.  I'm doubtful that we could agree on a methodology for 
creating a large ontology since this is an effort largely without 
precedent.  It's hard enough getting agreement on concrete terms and 
definitions.
   You also raise a couple of other issues

1.  Organization of the document which makes the ontological architecture 
clear.  Could you specify what sort of organization you'd like to see?

2.  You mention a possibility of starting with just part of the 
document.  Which parts would you propose to include or exclude?

Adam

At 07:05 PM 7/26/2001 -0400, Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I wrote:

>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John.Velman@HSC.com
>To: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
>Sent: 7/26/01 5:33 PM
>Subject: Re: SUO E-mail Ballot -- Please Acknowledge receipt
>
>
>I abstain.
>
>I do this somewhat reluctantly, because I do think it is
>important to move forward.  Hence, if there are enough votes
>to carry this forward, I also won't vote to block that effort.
>
>I would like to cast a "yes", because a great deal of work
>has gone into this, and there are a number of good features to
>it.  I wouldn't vote against it based on detailed technical
>issues, nor on disagreements as to whether or not the ontology
>presented represents "reality", although I have a few such
>issues with the ontology as it stands.  For engineering purposes, we
>need (in my opinion) to have an ontology that is adequate for
>the purpose; it doesn't necessarily have to agree with my
>personal ontological commitments (whatever they may be).
>
>On the other hand, I think whatever we accept as a document for
>working group work should have a clear guiding principal, and a
>defined methodology that supports it.  I also would like to see
>an organization of material that allows one to see the architecture
>of the ontology more easily.
>
>The existing document exhibits too clearly (for my taste) its
>heritage as a merger of diverse documents.  It goes rather deep in
>some areas, and is rather shallow in other areas.  Perhaps one approach
>would to be to only present part of the work already accomplished,
>as a starter document.  This could perhaps be done in a way that
>was balanced as to the level (granularity?) reached in different
>branches.  Then, things could be added after some concensus was
>reached on the initial parts.  But, I'm suggesting some parts
>of a method, without having given a guiding principle, myself.
>
>John Velman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I"
><James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil>
>on 07/19/2001 08:30:41 PM
>
>To:    "'matthew.r.west@is.shell.com '" <matthew.r.west@is.shell.com>,
>        "'shams@pnu.ac.ir '" <shams@pnu.ac.ir>,
>        "'michael.f.uschold@boeing.com '" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>,
>        "'mcdavid@us.ibm.com '" <mcdavid@us.ibm.com>,
>"'rekent@ontologos.org
>        '" <rekent@ontologos.org>, "'phil.jackson@computer.org '"
>        <phil.jackson@computer.org>, "'cassidy@micra.com '"
>        <cassidy@micra.com>, "'zarri@ivry.cnrs.fr '"
><zarri@ivry.cnrs.fr>,
>        "'phayes@ai.uwf.edu '" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "Schoening, James R
>        CECOM DCSC4I" <James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil>,
>        "'Graham.Horn@aihw.gov.au '" <Graham.Horn@aihw.gov.au>,
>        "'fgm@fla.fujitsu.com '" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>,
>        "'martin_king@uk.ibm.com '" <martin_king@uk.ibm.com>,
>        "'sofia@gia.ist.utl.pt '" <sofia@gia.ist.utl.pt>, "'fnc@mitre.org
>'"
>        <fnc@mitre.org>, "'chris.angus@kalido.com '"
>        <chris.angus@kalido.com>, "'tmk@lsc.co.uk '" <tmk@lsc.co.uk>,
>        "'john.r.velman@boeing.com '" <john.r.velman@boeing.com>,
>        "'iniles@teknowledge.com '" <iniles@teknowledge.com>,
>        "'tinwisle@bloomington.in.us '" <tinwisle@bloomington.in.us>,
>        "'piph@erols.com '" <piph@erols.com>, "'jawbrey@oakland.edu '"
>        <jawbrey@oakland.edu>, "'kath@umod.kiev.ua '"
><kath@umod.kiev.ua>,
>        "'jdickert@dtic.mil '" <jdickert@dtic.mil>,
>"'jtonkel@earthlink.net
>        '" <jtonkel@earthlink.net>, "'chris_partridge@csi.com '"
>        <chris_partridge@csi.com>, "'frank@farance.com '"
>        <frank@farance.com>, "'bordogna@tin.it '" <bordogna@tin.it>,
>        "'stborgo@indiana.edu '" <stborgo@indiana.edu>,
>        "'jhalcomb@teknowledge.com '" <jhalcomb@teknowledge.com>,
>        "'miz@ei.sanken.osaka-u.ac.jp '" <miz@ei.sanken.osaka-u.ac.jp>,
>        "'werner@landc.be '" <werner@landc.be>, "'gangemi@itbm.rm.cnr.it
>'"
>        <gangemi@itbm.rm.cnr.it>, "'skydog@pacbell.net '"
>        <skydog@pacbell.net>, "'lee@textwise.com '" <lee@textwise.com>,
>        "'apease@teknowledge.com '" <apease@teknowledge.com>,
>        "'Nicola.Guarino@ladseb.pd.cnr.it '"
>        <Nicola.Guarino@ladseb.pd.cnr.it>, "'wburkett@pdit.com '"
>        <wburkett@pdit.com>
>cc:
>
>Subject:  SUO E-mail Ballot -- Please Acknowledge receipt
>
>
>ATTN Voting Members of SUO WG,
>
>1. Please immediately acknowledge receipt of this email letter ballot.
>If
>I
>do not receive within 3-days, I will contact you again.  We want to make
>sure all voting members receive this ballot.  The wording of this ballot
>was
>developed and reviewed by the SUO Policies & Procedures Subgroup.
>
>2. This message is to Ballot the question :
>
>      "Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working Group
>commence work on the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO) version 1.15
>[June 22, 2001] posted at http://suo.ieee.org/Merge.txt, with the intent
>of
>developing it into the final SUO document?
>      Note 1: See background information below for more details.
>      Note 2: This may be one of several candidate documents to be
>combined and aligned into the final SUO document via the consensus
>building
>process."
>
>3. By 15 Aug '01, please vote YES (comments optional), NO (comments
>required), or ABSTAIN (comments optional).  Please send your votes and
>comments directly to me, but you are also free to post to the SUO list
>and
>openly discuss this topic.
>
>4. This vote will pass if it receives a majority of YES vs. NO votes.
>ABSTAINS and non-votes are not counted in determining majority. The
>Chair
>may vote to make or break a tie. As all voting members will have
>received
>and acknowledge receipt of this ballot and will therefore have an
>opportunity to vote, there will be no quorum of votes required for this
>motion to be determined.
>
>5. Non-voting participants are welcome to express opinions and submit
>comments.
>
>6. Background:
>
>      a. The purpose of this vote is to determine the level of consensus
>we have for focusing work on this document.  In other words, we need to
>decide if we are going to go down this path or not.  A working group may
>decide to work on more than one document.
>
>      b. The primary purpose of this vote is NOT to propose improvements
>to the document, unless they are major enough for you to vote against
>focusing work on this document.  However, such general improvement
>comments
>are welcome and will be resolved (but not unless and until the vote
>passes,
>since there would be no sense resolving comments if the group does not
>want
>to proceed
>with this document.
>
>      c. If this vote passes, this document will change from being the
>work (and under the control) of a group of individuals to being the work
>(and under the control) of the SUO WG.  A Technical Editor will be
>appointed
>or elected, who will incorporate WG-approved changes into the document.
>This does not require frequent formal votes for every change. A better
>approach
>for daily or weekly updates is to develop consensus by resolving
>objections,
>as we did
>when revising the Scope and Purpose.  In other words, (1) the Technical
>Editor leads the discussion by processing the issues and suggestions;
>(2)the
>issues/suggestions identify proposed additions, changes, or deletions to
>the
>wording in the document; (3) the Technical Editor asks the WG for any
>objections.  Items that do not have clear consensus would be accumulated
>for
>later, more formal processing, i.e., the proposer of the
>issue/suggestion
>is
>responsible for making a formal proposal (with a WG vote) for the
>proposed
>change.
>
>Jim Schoening
>Chair, SUO WG

Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571