SUO: RE: Getting Ahead - Procedures
Dear Jay,
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: Jay Halcomb [mailto:jhalcomb8@attbi.com]
> Sent: 07 September 2003 16:33
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subject: 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?
MW: It is a general purpose process for producing any kind of
deliverable that is a standard. Could be any of the above, and
includes this document itself. The objective is to describe
an open quality driven process to achieve a deliverable that
has consensus.
> 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.
MW: I think you are looking for an overall Work Programme
Proposal. John Sowa's proposal is the closest we have to
that. I am only looking to provide a component within that
programme, plus any necessary supporting infrastructure,
e.g. this development process.
>
> 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.
MW: I think that you are describing a separate document that
specifies quality criteria for a particular type of standards
deliverable. I think that is desirable, but not the target for
this document.
>
> 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.
MW: Like Pierre, you seem to have a different idea of what a starter
document is from me, and I have stopped using that term. I am
describing a process to produce a deliverable that is a finished
component of our work. I take the SUO only to be the sum of those
components.
>
> Specific:
>
> a) It isn't always clear to me who is voting on what, when voting is
> mentioned.
MW: Only the SUO Group votes.
>
> 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".
MW: In general if you do not have someone to "stick" with the
responsibility for a work programme/project, then you don't have
anything, so I have completely the reverse opinion - no proposal
without a project/programme manager. If there was an alternative
candidate proposed, I would be happy to have a vote within a vote
on who should be the PM.
>
> 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.
MW: OK.
> 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?
MW: The totality of what we are doing here, so either or both or something
else.
>
> 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").
MW: Essentially a technical issue is one that prevents the deliverable
from meeting its purpose. Minor and major are a matter of degree. I
can really only give more examples. A definition that was misleading
or ambiguous would be a technical issue, rather than editorial, but
probably a minor issue (easy to fix). An axiomatisation that lead to
a contradiciton would probably be a major 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
>
>