SUO: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures

[Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@att.net>]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

SUOP.  Note 4

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

MW = Matthew West

MW: 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.

MW: But we get ahead of ourselves again.

Mathhew,

All ontology projects (starter documents and their proposers)
are guaranteed to have bland PR prefaces and to praise the
virtues of ontological FMAP's ("flags, moms, apple pies").
The procedures of a Standards Body should have some way
of doing either one of two things:

   1.  Inducing a modicum of self-critical self-reflection
       in the ontology project that is submitted for review.

       This is necessary in order for the ontology project to
       develop a specific and realistically feasible agenda for
       itself, given its probatable background and competencies,
       instead of just spinning out a conventional set of vague
       and generally espoused aims.

   2.  Doing it for them.

Also, that's several times now that you've said we are getting ahead
of ourselves.  That would be a novelty to me.  Are these things not
a part of what we most need discussing to formulate SUO Procedures?

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o