SUO: RE: RE: Getting Ahead - Procedures
Dear Matthew,
Thanks for your comments -- please see further questions / comments below.
Phil Jackson
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 2:10 PM
> To: Philip Jackson; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subject: SUO: RE: Getting Ahead - Procedures
>
>
>
> Dear Phil,
>
> See comments 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.west@shell.com
> Internet: http://www.shell.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Philip Jackson [mailto:phil.jackson@computer.org]
> > Sent: 06 September 2003 16:28
> > To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: Getting Ahead - Procedures
> >
> >
> > Dear Matthew,
> >
> > This is an interesting proposal. It seems reasonable and that
> > it could help
> > the group make progress. Following are the stages that you
> > propose for a SUO
> > work program:
> >
> > Activity Approval
> > Draft Material Development
> > Draft Standard Proposal
> > Standard Proposal
> > Standard Revision
> >
> > How do these stages relate to the ISO progression that you previously
> > described?
>
> MW: A slight simplification, but following similar principles.
If I understand correctly, I would draw the following correspondences:
SUO Activity Approval ~ ISO New Work Item (NWI)
SUO Draft Material Development ~ ISO Working Draft (WD) & Committee Draft
(CD)
SUO Draft Standard Proposal ~ ISO Draft International Standard (DIS)
SUO Standard Proposal ~ ISO Final Draft International Standard (FDIS) &
International Standard
Is this correct?
>
> > Do you anticipate that a document could go through multiple
> > revisions and votes at each stage, before progressing to the
> > next stage?
>
> MW: Yes. It is probably the judgement of the Chair and the Project
> Leader whether to progress to the next stage or repeat the stage.
> You are looking for a high (close to 100%) consensus. So if there
> are lots of issues but they are accepted and the resolution is clear
> there is no real reason not to progress. But if the issues raised
> are serious, and requires significant work, it is probably better
> to repeat the stage.
PJ: From previous history, we can expect any decision based on judgment to
be questioned and appealed by people who don't agree with it. Could
progression to the next level be based on the strength of the vote in favor
of a document?
PJ: Likewise, there could be lots of debate and disagreement about what are
serious vs. what are minor issues. Perhaps here again, the strength of the
vote in favor of a document could be used to determine whether it is ready
to go to the next level...?
PJ: Based on your experience with ISO, would requiring a 2/3 vote to proceed
to the next level be a good way of addressing these issues? Or is that too
high or too low?
>
> > Following is your previous description of the ISO stages:
> >
> > New Work Item (NWI)
> >
> > A statement of intent and perhaps some initial material, but not
> > normally technically complete. This is approved by the committee
> > that develops it.
> >
> > Working Draft (WD)
> >
> > Some draft material for review. Not necessarily technically complete.
> > You can have a series of these. These are
> > reviewed by the team developing it.
> >
> > Committee Draft (CD)
> >
> > A (nominally) technically complete document. Though most I have seen
> > have been typically 90% complete. This to be reviewed formally by the
> > committee that prepared it. Voted on by National Standards Bodies.
> > Again there can be a series of these if there is not enough consensus
> > to move to the next stage.
> >
> > Draft International Standard (DIS)
> >
> > This must be technically complete, and jump through a lot of hoops to
> > check e.g. the editorial quality. It is the published by ISO
> > for public
> > review. Voted on by National Standards Bodies. Again a series is
> > possible.
> >
> > Final Draft International Standard (FDIS)
> >
> > Only required if there is a "no" vote against the DIS (from
> > any country
> > rather than a "no" result of the vote).
> >
> > International Standard
> >
> > Any editorial issues from the FDIS are resolved and the document
> > published.
> >
> > Please advise,
> >
> > Phil Jackson
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> > > [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On
> > Behalf Of
> > > West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> > > Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 8:20 AM
> > > To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>