SUO: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedure Topics
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOPT. Note 4
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
CA = Chris Angus
JA = Jon Awbrey
With passing reference to:
JA: SUOPT :> Quantifier 01. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11703.html
CA asks:
CA: What is the purpose of this email and a number of others of a similar ilk?
CA: Is it asking a question?
CA: Are you expecting a response to someone?
CA: Does anyone gain any value from it?
Chris,
I'll answer your questions under a more generic heading,
as I they do not seem to be concerned with the topic of
defining Quantifier, but directed more to the nature of
the overall procedure that I am following here.
I think I explained what I would be trying to do before I started,
and I've been trying to give ongoing explanations along the way,
but I will try to provide a more compact account at this point.
The basic idea is just to organize our discussion of Procedure
a little better, partly in hopes that maybe we can quit going
round and round in circles, without making any real progress.
This sort of non-productive but also non-terminating behavior
is a typical symptom of procedural loops that no longer have,
or maybe never had, any kind of a Reality Check, that are not
hooked up to any sort of IO test of the real conditions in the
external environment. So when I see that sort of behavior in
a program or a programme, as the case may be, one of the first
diagnoses that I think to check out is whether the procedure
in question is missing a Reality Check, or a way of sensing
its traction on the road, as it were.
In the monitory logging process that I am presently developing to
address this problem, and that I am still trying to work a few of
the bugs out of, my procedure has been to read through each draft
of the Procedure specification that Matthew has been writing, and
simply to take note of the terms that appear to present a problem,
often by dint of lacking any clear definition, or else by seeming
to be used in ways that are out of sync with any definition that
I can guess. Beyond that, I have only been able to do a slight
bit of look-ahead, trying to anticipate a few other terms that
commonly arise in relation to these, either as near synonyms,
or exemplifying, modifying, specializing, or subsuming terms.
The main thing is to put a Topic heading, as if in a program outliner,
at the proper place in the Archive, at first just asking "What is X?",
by way of prompting participants to think about the "Ontology of X",
if they prefer to pose it that way, but with the focus more on what
does X mean in the context of the prospective SUO Procedures that we
will one day hope to follow toward greater success than in past times.
I am hopeful that, in the fullness of time, both the SUO Group,
and the Society that is the SUO Group's Ultimate Target Audience,
will gain some considerable value from it.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o