SUO: RE: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
Dear Jon,
See comments below.
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: 14 November 2003 14:12
> To: SUO; West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> Subject: 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.
MW: it sounds to me that you want to introduce specific rules for say
the number or proportion of issues that are unresolved say before an
acceptance vote can be taken. Would that be right?
MW: The problem is that this is as much open to abuse as the current
state of affairs is. I don't think we can avoid the possibility of
abuse by any procedure. The best we can do is make it visible. That is
usually enough though.
>
> That is the task.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
>