SUO: RE: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
Dear Jon,
You're right, and I intend that the procedures should require
that deliverables have a stated purpose that would be part of
their initial vote for a project/programme so that that is
what they are judged against.
But we get ahead of ourselves again.
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: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@att.net]
> Sent: 12 November 2003 23:49
> To: SUO
> Subject: SUO: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
>
>
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> SUOP. Note 1
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> Matthew, Murray, SUO Working Group,
>
> Some initial thoughts and questions.
>
> 1. Qualifications for Starter Documents.
>
> We already have lots of procedures and
> routines for voting on starter documents.
> I suggest that we not haggle over those
> sorts of issues anymore, indeed, I have
> come to revise my own opinion about what
> qualifies as a starter document to what
> already seems to be the de facto norm,
> that just about any working effort or
> historically established project is
> worth discussing in this forum.
>
> 2. Classification of Ontology Projects.
>
> It seems that one of our major roadblocks at this time has to do
> with the very different sorts of ontology projects before us, and
> though I believe that this diversity can be a good thing, I think
> that it brings up a question to ask about each of these projects:
>
> What does this particular ontology project want to be? How does
> it want to define itself, its aims, its own criteria for success,
> and how does that project for being relate to the other projects?
>
> Supper Time!
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
>