SUO: RE: RE: Getting Ahead - Procedures
Dear Phil,
See responses 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: 07 September 2003 17:51
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subject: 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)
MW: yes.
> SUO Draft Material Development ~ ISO Working Draft (WD) &
> Committee Draft
> (CD)
MW: No, just WD, with CD the vote is already quite formal
>
> SUO Draft Standard Proposal ~ ISO Draft International Standard (DIS)
MW: And CD.
> SUO Standard Proposal ~ ISO Final Draft International
> Standard (FDIS) &
> International Standard
>
> Is this correct?
MW: I would not encourage drawing too close parallels, only in
principles, rather than details.
>
> >
> > > 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?
MW: That would be the primary driver. Remember the vote is really
about the QUALITY of the document. The number and difficulty of
resolution of the issues would also be a consideration.
MW: If you try to progress too fast the result is a standard that is
not particularly good. It will either be ignored, or it will have
issues raised against it, and you will need to have a new version.
You can't cheat reality. You can always skip a stage forwards
too, if you think you have a deliverable that will achieve sufficient
consensus.
>
> 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...?
MW: It is the issue raiser who decides what level the issue is at.
I often see issues over stated, but it still gives a useful
indication of what is seen as being more important. More seasoned
standardisers learn to be disciplined in their assessment of issues.
If everything is a Major Technical issue - not much is gained.
>
> 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?
MW: We have a different voting system here than in ISO, and I
see no reason not to stick to it. So 50% +1 of votes cast (including
abstain) must be in favour. As a PM if I had a lot of Major Technical
Issues that I was uncertain how to resolve, I might still go round
the loop at the same level again. But if the issues were ones I
would want to reject, then I would probably press on. You can't
please all of the people all of the time, and we have seen that a
positive vote here is no mean achievement.
>
> >
> > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>