SUO: RE: RE: Vote 2001-02: IFF Foundation Ontology
See correction below.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK
> Sent: 15 August 2001 08:34
> To: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I;
> 'standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org'
> Subject: SUO: RE: Vote 2001-02: IFF Foundation Ontology
>
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I vote NO for the IFF to be a starter document to be developed into
> the SUO.
>
> Comment
>
> I am very much more in sympathy with the IFF than with SUMO, in that
> it has a clear principled approach to what is being done, and I
> wish to support its further development. However, for the current
> document you need to be an expert in category theory to understand
> it. My experience is that people are reluctant to understand things,
^^^^^^^^^^
use
> particularly foundations that they do not understand, even taking
> account that the foundation will be invisible to most users.
>
> This suggests one of two approaches:
>
> 1/ Use a different start point as foundation (e.g. set theory - such
> as proposed by Chris Menzel).
>
> 2/ Make the category theory foundation more intelligible to
> non-experts.
>
> My preference is for the latter, with perhaps Chris's work
> integrated in
> at some level.
>
> I can imagine contributing to this work, once it has reached
> a stage of
> development where I can understand it.
>
>
> Matthew West
> Principal Consultant
> Shell Information Technology International Limited
> Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
> Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
> Internet: http://www.shell.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
> > [mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil]
> > Sent: 10 August 2001 03:47
> > To: 'standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org'
> > Subject: SUO: Vote 2001-02: IFF Foundation Ontology
> >
> >
> >
> > ATTN Voting Members of the SUO WG,
> >
> > 1. Please immediately acknowledge receipt of this email
> > letter ballot. If I
> > do not receive such acknowledgement within 5 days, I will
> > contact you again.
> > We want to make sure all voting members receive this ballot.
> >
> > 2. This message is to ballot the question, as proposed by
> Robert Kent:
> >
> > "Should the IEEE P1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology Working
> > Group commence work
> > on the IFF Foundation Ontology version 1.0 [July 20, 2001]
> posted at
> > http://suo.ieee.org/Kent-IFF.pdf, with the intent of
> > developing it into the
> > final SUO document?
> > Note 1: See the background information below for more details.
> > Note 2: This may be one of several candidate documents, any
> > one of which may
> > become the final SUO document, or may be combined and aligned
> > into the final
> > SUO document via the consensus building process. No one
> > candidate document
> > will have preferential status relative to the others."
> >
> > 3. By Thursday, August 30, 2001, please vote YES (comments
> optional),
> > NO(comments required), or ABSTAIN (comments optional). Votes
> > should be sent
> > directly to me (to reduce list traffic), but please post
> your comments
> > directly to the list so they have a chance to be resolved.
> > Comments sent to
> > me will be forwarded to the SUO list.
> >
> > 4. Per the SUO Chair's interpretation of Robert's Rules of
> > Order (with input
> > from members of the SUO P&P Subgroup), the following items
> > will be followed:
> > 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
> > acknowledged 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. None of these items are considered to be changes
> > to existing
> > policies and procedures, only interpretations.
> >
> > 5. Non-voting participants are welcome to express opinions
> and submit
> > comments to the SUO list.
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>