SUO: RE: Standard Upper Ontology Procedure Topics
Jon
> 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.
Maybe you did, but quite frankly it becomes difficult to keep track of what
it is you are doing given such a plethora of messages, particularly given
the propensity for the SUO list server to delay, replicate and amend the
delivery order and also given the volume of messages from other sources that
many of us get. What is it that tells me how to deal with:
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOPT :> Defect. Note 1
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
What is a defect?
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
At least this is one that seems to have something to do with Matthew's
document. But is it an issue against his document? Are you disagreeing
with his definition of 'defect'? Or is it simply a placeholder to remind
yourself that you want to talk about it one day?
It becomes even more confusing with examples like 'Quantifier'. I still do
not know what it was really there for. Does it relate in any way to
Matthew's project?
> 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.
I fail to see how it helps achieve your stated purpose. (Sorry, probably
shouldn't have said purpose, might lead to another such note if we haven't
had one already).
> 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.
But where does 'quantifier' come into this?
> 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.
This might well be laudable and useful excercise, it is the mechanism that
you are using that causes me difficulty. Why not gather these 'topic
headings' together in one document and present the resultant 'outline' in a
single hit. If I want to know what is in a book I would rather see the
contents page as a whole, rather than have it transmitted one line at a
time, each in a separate email.
Regards
Chris Angus