Re: SUO: Getting Ahead - Procedures
Matthew,
Well, for all it's worth I'm thankful for these efforts. My French part is a
little put off by the formality of the procedure. What would really be useful -
and what is missing, but you probably can't be blamed - are guidelines for
_content_development_.
Other than that, I guess the procedure you offer is standard ISO community
procedure. Assuming that we need thinking about that kind of procedural
guidelines, a few comments which I consider as supporting the first two general
ones. (I regard most of these comments as major issues.)
Best,
Pierre
Genreal comment: It seems that the process you describe here is Starter and not
Standard development. (see comment 9. below)
Genreal comment: What is the status of the group working on the proposal? How
is membership decided? at the discretion of this all powerful project manager?
Why is there a project manager and no project (actually not until 2.3) nor
project members?
1. Section 2.1
I still think that this notion of a starting item is too weak (objective and
outline).
3. Section 2.1, first paragraph, last sentence.
I'm leery about including the nomination of a project manager in a motion for a
starter. Project manager should be a role. It should be optional. Even if the
proposal mention the need for a project manager, the mention of the name should
be optional only. Project editors, if any, should be removable as a matter of
principle.
4. Section 2.1, 3rd p.
A compulsory role is that of an editor (removable as well). I have no intuition
as to whether nominal mention should be compulsory.
5. Section 2.1
Would any of these roles have to be filled by voting members of the SUO only?
6. Section 2.2, 2nd sentence. "This may be circulated for comment at the
discretion of the Project Manager."
What is that? Is a project manager a dictator or something? Remove or change to
'This may be circulated upon the discretion of the authors.'
7. Section 2.2, 3rd sentence.
No formal vote is requested where? In the SUO WG or in the ad hoc subgroup?
8. How issues can be raised and sent to the SUO list (Lord Almighty have
mercy!) if the Draft Material is not public? By whom will these issues be
raised? The project manager?
9. Section 2.3 on the vote on the draft standard proposal. That is completely
abstract. I assume the vote is taken in the SUO WG group, not in the project.
But what is voted on? How can this achieve any level of completion by itself if
this is intended to be incoprorated in a modular framework. Why, you are
proposing to develop many standards?
It seems that the process you describe here is Starter and not Standard
development.
10. Editorial: Project Leader reads Project Manager.
11. Remove mention of Project Manager.
This decision should be the outcome of a vote among the project members
(modality to be elucidated). There should be an arbitrating instance in case of
indecision or major disagreement to which any party should be able to appeal.
SUO WG Chair? SUO WG itself?
12. Triffle: Pro Forma should include an entry 'Project name' or some other
identifier. Also, an entry, 'issue number'. You can conflate and have one entry
formatted as PROJECT_NAME/ISSUE_NUMBER.
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Please find attached a PDF file of a document entitled:
>
> Standard Upper Ontology Development Guidelines Version 1.0 Draft 1
>
> This can be considered as a preview of a deliverable of the first
> task in the proposed Work Programme.
>
> If it is applied recursively, it is draft material for review.
>
>
> 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.west@shell.com
> Internet: http://www.shell.com
>