SUO: RE: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
Dear Jon,
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: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@att.net]
> Sent: 13 November 2003 13:18
> To: SUO
> Subject: SUO: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
>
>
>
> 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.
MW: I agree.
>
> 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.
MW: ??
>
> 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?
MW: Yes, but what I am doing here is checking that the process for
developing the procedures has no basic flaws. We are not yet talking
about the procedures themselves.
MW: According to the process I am suggesting that will start with
me proposing a purpose, target audience and table of contents. At that
point we would start talking about what was missing there. (I'm
expecting a lot).
MW: This is why I keep saying we are ahead of ourselves.
MW: I appreciate this probably sounds rather structured for this
organisation. But that is the discipline I think we need to learn.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
>