SUO: RE: 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 15:45
> To: SUO
> Subject: 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.
MW: Self evidently you can call it what you like. You however at
least using the term with a different sense than I am.
>
> 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.
MW: Carry on.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
>