SUO: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOP. Note 12
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
JA = Jon Awbrey
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.
JA: 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:
JA: 1. Inducing a modicum of self-critical self-reflection
in the ontology project that is submitted for review.
MW: I agree.
JA: 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.
JA: 2. Doing it for them.
MW: ??
I didn't mean "behavior modification" or anything like that.
We cannot literally force a project group to achieve a happy
mediation between its actual and espoused agenda, or even to
bring about a condition of accord between its aspirations and
a set of practical aims that are feasible, genuine, and honest.
Again, I keep going back to our tired old tyre safety example.
If product producers make claims that are not supported by the
available test data, then the least we can do is alert the media.
JA: 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.
Now you're getting loopy. That's my job.
All I know is that I'm asking questions
about what you're saying. Don't try to
pull these 2-hat tricks on me. Process
is process.
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).
It seems that the feedback about purpose is already under way.
Hear us now and believe us later.
MW: This is why I keep saying we are ahead of ourselves.
Speak for yourself. Then correct the situation by getting behind yourself.
MW: I appreciate this probably sounds rather structured
for this organisation. But that is the discipline
I think we need to learn.
I am used to structure.
So long as it functions
to a worthwhile purpose.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o