SUO: Re: Getting Ahead - Procedures
Matthew: That's a nice start on describing a workable process. It's a bit
sketchy -- that being the nature of initial proposals, of course. Here are
my comments and suggestions.
General:
1) It isn't clear if this describes a process for developing ontologies as
potential candidates for 'the' SUO, or for ontologies to be fitted into a
lattice of theories, a la the Sowa initiative, which the group has accepted.
Can this be clarified? It isn't clear that both tracks might not be
developed simultaneously (why should they not be? -- but a document which
aspired to be 'the' SUO would clearly have to pass tougher hurdles than one
which was proposed as a component of an LOT). Some recognition/clarfication
should be made of these aims should be made, I think.
2) Your proposal describes a formal process, but doesn't address any
criteria for suitability of candidates. I think some criteria of
acceptability (but not a straitjacket) needs to be worked in. Otherwise,
SUO and the WGs will have to be constantly reinventing the wheel, ad hoc and
individually, for every proposal which comes along. My own suggestions are
to deal with (at some minimum level of specification) target languages and
logics.
3) Your proposal speaks of developing a Draft Standard, but it seems to me
really to be describing a process more suitable for submitting initial
'Starter' documents/proposals. I think the two aims (and processes) should
be separately delineated.
Specific:
a) It isn't always clear to me who is voting on what, when voting is
mentioned.
b) I don't think it should be required that a Project Manager shall be
proposed at the same time that a proposal is made. In fact, this should
probably be a separate process -- first, proposal, second, selection of a
PM, after a proposal has been accepted. I suppose that some ideas about who
a PM might be would be 'in the air' when a proposal was being made, but
still, these are separate issues. Change "shall" to "may".
c) "The motion may include reference to initial material, or deliverable
material for any later stages of the process." Change "may' to "shall" -- a
proposal which doesn't reference any present or future materials is hardly a
proposal worth bothering with.
d) "If the motion is passed the Work Programme becomes a recognised part of
the Standard Upper Ontology activity." Which activity -- what is the
ultimate process aimed at? Developing a submission for a LOT, or as an
ultimate SUO, or both?
e) I think that more should be said to explain what the phrase "technical
issues" might mean ( as in "major technical issue", "minor technical
issue").
Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <matthew.west@shell.com>
To: "Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)" <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 05:20
Subject: SUO: Getting Ahead - Procedures
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