SUO: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOP. Note 13
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
JA = Jon Awbrey
MW = Matthew West
JA: SUOP 05. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11596.html
MW: I nearly answered this as an implied question earlier.
MW: The purpose of the Procedures document should support the overall
purpose of the SUO (as indeed should the purpose of all top level
documents/deliverables).
MW: This might be demonstrated by the purpose for the procedures commencing:
MW: "This procedures document supports the purpose of the SUO by ..."
"The SUOP supports the SUOPAR purpose by ..."
Sounds like a good start. I suggest that we spend some time thinking
about the nature of the intended support relation, X supports Y by Z.
Surprise, surprise, it's 3-adic.
But I wonder if this is properly called "subordination"?
After all, which document is boss of which? Which doc
can hire and fire which?
MW: This would indicate the subordination, and allow
the check that the purpose was indeed supportive.
MW: I am trying to be lightweight still, or else I might
suggest we really do things properly and get into:
MW: Mission, Vision, Objectives, Strategy, Critical Success Factors,
Risks, Key Performance Indicators, Plans and Tasks, and all that
proper management stuff. (The current Purpose for the SUO would
probably match the Mission here).
Sounds like worthy subjects for discussion.
And I think the days for bantam bandying
of lighter words are probably behind us.
MW: We might get into that sometime, but in any case we need
the procedures document as a bootstrap even for that.
Matthew,
Let me now make a concrete proposal:
Let us develop the SUO Procedure Doc in group, online, the way
that we did the SUO Scope and Purpose, that went to make up the
SUO PAR. Wear the mantle of your leadership lightly, then, and
commit to servant-lead more as a catalyst or a facilitator than
"yet another manifesto author" (YAMA). After all, that's my job.
The last thing that the SUO WG needs at this point is yet another
small subcommittee retreating to some clositer to achieve among
their company what anthropologists call a "separate consensus",
in effect, a condition of collective mentality indiscernible
from the hermeneutically sealed contentments of a tight knit
cabal's mutually admiring hallucinations. No more of these
documents that authors fall so in love with that no amount
of petard hoisting will shake them from their devotions.
You may log that as an Issue.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o