SUO: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOP. Note 15
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
JA = Jon Awbrey
MW = Matthew West
JA: 2. Doing it for them.
MW: ??
JA: 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,
I observe the use of subjunctive mood, for example, your "would be" above,
to express a wish, or perhaps a statement of the way things "ought to be".
I have many fond wishes of my own, but they become a bit too fond when
there is no Expectation -- and let me say that my years of statistics,
not to mention years of even sadder experience, have taught me to use
the term "Expectation" as an experienced-based term quite distinct
from the optative category of hopes and wishes -- that such hopes
and wishes will be actualized, certainly not all by themselves.
So our task here, in this Specification Of Procedures,
is not merely to state our hopes and wishes, but to
reason out the schematics of plans that may, on the
basis of experience and reason, be Expected to have
some practical effects on behalf of their success.
That is the task.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o