SUO: RE: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
Dear Jon,
> 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.
>
MW: The record of unresolved issues against a project would be
appropriate evidence for voting against acceptance of a deliverable
that had not succeeded.
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 22:28
> To: SUO
> Subject: 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
>
>