SUO: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOP. Note 5
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
JA = Jon Awbrey
MW = Matthew West
Matthew,
Let me review the last few exchanges a little more carefully,
as the evidently anti-4D behavior of the SUO reflector, plus
a storm and a power loss at the receiving end, have slightly
scrambled my thoughts on the matter.
MW: We need to start work on the procedures document.
The process I intend to apply is one we use in
the part of Shell that I am in:
MW: 1. I will define a purpose and target audience for
the document, together with a table of contents.
MW: 2. These are reviewed and amended, informally
if we can make that work, but more formally
(raising formal issues) if we run into problems.
MW: 3. I (and possibly others) will fill in the blanks.
It may not be appropriate to attempt a full draft
before a first review because of dependencies,
but we will see.
MW: 4. Review draft document and amend,
informally where possible, formally
when that doesn't work.
MW: 5. Repeat 3 & 4 until we have reached consensus,
or a point where a vote is necessary to resolve
any issues.
MW: 6. I will propose a motion for acceptance of the document.
MW: 7. The document becomes subject to its own
provisions for revision and improvement.
MW: Any comments? (silence is taken as consent).
JA: We already have a Scope and Purpose Document,
worked out after many grueling months of BST&T,
and each time I read it I like it more and more --
I learned in Psych somewhere that this effect is
a prediction of Cognitive Dissonance Theory, given
the fact that I got no remuneration for the BST&T.
JA: So I think that what we need is a Procedures Guideline.
And I suggest that we start in stepwise refinement mode,
beginning with the broadest principles that all members
of the working group would rationally adopt as maxims
for their conduct, only when settlement is achieved
on these grander scores descending a step closer
toward the brass tacks.
MW: I do not mean a purpose for SUO, but for the procedures document itself.
The purpose gives you a basis against which to check the content to see
that it meets the purpose (or else of course you can change the purpose
to match the document). Similarly, the Target Audience (SUO members I
guess) means that you can establish some (if any) common context which
should impact the language.
JA: Fair enough, but I should have thought
that "more perfect co-product" would
just about cover it. The Quod to be
Demonstrated is that there is a clear
relationshiop between the Purpose set
and the Procedures to be developed.
Okay. Let me try to think this through.
Varieties of Purpose.
1. There is the purpose of the SUO Working Group (SUO WG),
as stated in SUO PAR or SUO Scope and Purpose (SUOPAR).
Water under the bridge. 2-gones. Subject to amendment.
2. There is the purpose of the SUO Procedures document (SUOP).
To be determined. To be announced. In the fullness of time.
Question. What is the proper relationship of the SUOP to SUOPAR?
Now, purposes are one of those things that pragmatic thinkers
tend to think about, a lot, so I know that I must have some
pertinent pragmatic thoughts about this precise problem
packed away somewhere.
At first sight, this seems to demand some sort of ordering,
involving either enabling purposes, metagoals, or subgoals:
1. Control ordering. Monitory oversight hierarchy.
2. Purpose ordering. Goal hierarchy.
3. Precendent order. Step number.
Questions about Goals and Purposes.
1. Closure under Meta.
1.1. Is a goal of a goal a goal?
1.2. Is a purpose of a purpose a purpose?
2. Transitivity under Sub.
2.1. Does the subprocedure have the
same goal as the superprocedure?
2.2. Does the procedure document for project X
have the same purpose as project X itself?
Those are some of the initial Issues that I suggest we need to think about.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o