SUO: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOP. Note 17
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
JA = Jon Awbrey
MW = Matthew West
JA: SUOP 13. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11612.html
In part:
JA: Let me now make a concrete proposal:
JA: 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.
MW: I thought we were already doing this ...
Yes, I believe that we are.
I just thought it advisable
to make a <Note> of the fact.
JA: You may log that as an Issue.
MW: Well as I expect you realise it isn't an issue.
An issue can only be raised against a deliverable
and identifies a defect in it, it is about a state
or outcome, not a process. What you have is a proposal
for a process. Technically we should not care too much
about the development approach, just as long as the outcome
is fit for purpose.
No, I must insist that it is an issue, and that it is therefore
properly called an "issue", precisely because it possesses the
properties that are proper to issues, the properties that are,
if incidentally, recognized by all people of proper good sense
to be the proper properties of issues, and thus there is no
justice of sense in trying to co-opt the word "issue" to
some proprietary sense or other that any improper cartel
of persons might seek to make themselves proprietors of.
If need be, I intend to make an issue of it.
Indeed, as it just occurs to me that the need has indeed wrisen already,
I will formally call this the "Issue Of Issues" (IOI), logding it under
the aegis and auspices of the "Ontology Of Issues" (OOI) as logged here:
JA: SUOP 16. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11622.html
MW: I wouldn't labour this, but getting into the
right way of defining issues is part of what
helps to make the quality process work.
I agree. Indeed, I've already made an issue of it.
So let us begin our inquiry into the issue of this
"right way of defining issues", which I am certain
that all the <Target Audience> would agree with us
is a very important issue for the sake of our work.
And thus, for all these sakes, I would e-labour it.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o