SUO: Re: SUOP Topic :> Definition Of Purpose
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOPT :> Purpose. Note 2
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
JA = Jon Awbrey
MW = Matthew West
Matthew,
In accord with the general principles of stepwise refinement,
it was my aim to avoid splitting too many heirs at the start,
and I think that it would be good to keep in mind all at one
time the entire complex of words and ideas that devolve from
the Greek notion of "pragma". But it also accords with this
stepwise strategy not to fuss too much over the nuances that
different nuancers see, as it is usually possible to conduct
the analysis in such a way that one eventually sorts out the
more abstract genus from the more concrete species by way of
the corresponding differentia.
Here I will collate some previous remarks on Purpose.
Cf. SUOP 01. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11584.html
Cf. SUOP 02. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11593.html
Cf. SUOP 03. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11591.html
In particular:
JA: Also, I will continue to recommend that we strive for the initial consenus
on general principles -- maxims of procedure rather than detailed do loops --
as the flowchart way of specifying procedures tends to land the working
group in yet another addendumb to robot's rules, that some people tend
to fall into following as a rote ritual whether it shows any evidence
of advancing the state of the art or not.
Cf. SUOP 04. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11592.html
In part:
MW: You're right, and I intend that the procedures should require
that deliverables have a stated purpose that would be part of
their initial vote for a project/programme so that that is
what they are judged against.
JA: All ontology projects (starter documents and their proposers)
are guaranteed to have bland PR prefaces and to praise the
virtues of ontological FMAP's ("flags, moms, apple pies").
The procedures of a Standards Body should have some way
of doing either one of two things:
JA: 1. Inducing a modicum of self-critical self-reflection
in the ontology project that is submitted for review.
JA: This is necessary in order for the ontology project to
develop a specific and realistically feasible agenda for
itself, given its probatable background and competencies,
instead of just spinning out a conventional set of vague
and generally espoused aims.
JA: 2. Doing it for them.
Cf. SUOP 05. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11596.html
Picking out the parts on Purpose:
MW: I will define a purpose and target audience for
the document, together with a table of contents.
JA: We already have a Scope and Purpose Document,
worked out after many grueling months of BST&T,
and each time I read it I like it more and more --
I learned in Psych somewhere that this effect is
a prediction of Cognitive Dissonance Theory, given
the fact that I got no remuneration for the BST&T.
JA: So I think that what we need is a Procedures Guideline.
And I suggest that we start in stepwise refinement mode,
beginning with the broadest principles that all members
of the working group would rationally adopt as maxims
for their conduct, only when settlement is achieved
on these grander scores descending a step closer
toward the brass tacks.
MW: I do not mean a purpose for SUO, but for the procedures document itself.
The purpose gives you a basis against which to check the content to see
that it meets the purpose (or else of course you can change the purpose
to match the document). Similarly, the Target Audience (SUO members I
guess) means that you can establish some (if any) common context which
should impact the language.
JA: Fair enough, but I should have thought
that "more perfect co-product" would
just about cover it. The Quod to be
Demonstrated is that there is a clear
relationshiop between the Purpose set
and the Procedures to be developed.
JA, "Varieties Of Purpose" (VOP), initial outline:
| Varieties of Purpose.
|
| 1. There is the purpose of the SUO Working Group (SUO WG),
| as stated in SUO PAR or SUO Scope and Purpose (SUOPAR).
| Water under the bridge. 2-gones. Subject to amendment.
|
| 2. There is the purpose of the SUO Procedures document (SUOP).
| To be determined. To be announced. In the fullness of time.
|
| Question. What is the proper relationship of the SUOP to SUOPAR?
|
| Now, purposes are one of those things that pragmatic thinkers
| tend to think about, a lot, so I know that I must have some
| pertinent pragmatic thoughts about this precise problem
| packed away somewhere.
|
| At first sight, this seems to demand some sort of ordering,
| involving either enabling purposes, metagoals, or subgoals:
|
| 1. Control ordering. Monitory oversight hierarchy.
|
| 2. Purpose ordering. Goal hierarchy.
|
| 3. Precendent order. Step number.
|
| Questions about Goals and Purposes.
|
| 1. Closure under Meta.
|
| 1.1. Is a goal of a goal a goal?
|
| 1.2. Is a purpose of a purpose a purpose?
|
| 2. Transitivity under Sub.
|
| 2.1. Does the subprocedure have the
| same goal as the superprocedure?
|
| 2.2. Does the procedure document for project X
| have the same purpose as project X itself?
|
| Those are some of the initial Issues that I suggest we need to think about.
Cf. SUOP 13. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11612.html
In part:
MW: The purpose of the Procedures document should support the overall
purpose of the SUO (as indeed should the purpose of all top level
documents/deliverables).
MW: This might be demonstrated by the purpose for the procedures commencing:
MW: "This procedures document supports the purpose of the SUO by ..."
JA: "The SUOP supports the SUOPAR purpose by ..."
JA: Sounds like a good start. I suggest that we spend some time thinking
about the nature of the intended support relation, X supports Y by Z.
Surprise, surprise, it's 3-adic.
MW: This would indicate the subordination, and allow
the check that the purpose was indeed supportive.
JA: But I wonder if this is properly called "subordination"?
After all, which document is boss of which? Which doc
can hire and fire which?
MW: I am trying to be lightweight still, or else I might
suggest we really do things properly and get into:
MW: Mission, Vision, Objectives, Strategy, Critical Success Factors,
Risks, Key Performance Indicators, Plans and Tasks, and all that
proper management stuff. (The current Purpose for the SUO would
probably match the Mission here).
JA: Sounds like worthy subjects for discussion.
And I think the days for bantam bandying
of lighter words are probably behind us.
Relevant remarks from the Topic Of Objective:
Cf. SUOPT :> Objective 01. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11640.html
JA: What is an objective? AKA: aim, goal, purpose, etc.
MW: To be picky a purpose is not quite the same as an objective.
A purpose is pretty much the same as a mission, which is
your raison d'etre. An objective is a desired state.
Now your purpose may be to bring an objective about,
but that is still different from the objective itself.
JA: What is our objective?
MW: Here: To produce a procedures document
that has the commitment of the SUO Group.
See also:
SUOPT :> Object 01. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11666.html
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o