SUO: RE: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
Dear Jay,
I am happy to substitute "is" for "would be" in my remarks
below. However, this still doesn't mean I can force someone
to vote a particular way based on the weight of evidence,
anymore than a jury can be forced to find someone guilty.
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: Jay Halcomb [mailto:jhalcomb8@attbi.com]
> Sent: 14 November 2003 17:32
> To: Jon Awbrey; SUO; West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> Subject: Re: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
>
>
> The subjunctive is a dangerous modality, best eschewed unless
> it's very well
> qualified -- and I do not think general agreement about such
> qualification
> exists. In fact, I know that it does not.
>
> "Another current [FOG] Gem, referring to the Russian River, with its
> threatened Coho and Steelhead and its endangered freshwater
> shrimp: 'It
> would be anticipated that in the event that the sediment
> enters the Russian
> River, the large volume of water, occurring during the winter
> in the lower
> reach of the Russian River, will mitigate any small amount of sediment
> coming off this THP.' Would it now -- be anticipated? By
> whom? *Was* it
> anticipated? *Is* it anticipated? How does possible anticipation weigh
> against demonstrable fact, even in a THP? Is there a rule in
> the Forest
> Practice Rules requiring the use of subjunctives, the third
> person, and the
> passive voice? The Editors can't find it, but it must be
> there somewhere.
> Flood victims must be comforted, knowing about this fortunate
> mitigation. "
>
> Source: FOGs http://www.rrraul.org/fogs.html
>
> Further remark below.
>
> Jay
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jon Awbrey" <jawbrey@att.net>
> To: "SUO" <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>; "Matthew West"
> <matthew.west@shell.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 06:12
> Subject: 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
>
> [Delete 'may', 'be Expected', and 'to have'; respectively
> insert 'will',
> Null, and
> 'cause']
>
> > some practical effects on behalf of their success.
> >
> > That is the task.
> >
> > Jon Awbrey
> >
> > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> >
>
>