SUO: RE: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
FWIW:
JA: What is an issue, anyway?
Does the being of an issue consist in it's possessing a special
set of properties, independent of it's being called by that name,
or does the being of an issue consist solely in it's being named
as such?
TJ: and for those in this forum who continue to use straw man nominalism as
a whipping boy, the choice Jon offers us here will be seen as a choice
between down to earth common sense realism, and effete, intellectually
snobbish nominalism. I remind you all of several emails I wrote earlier this
year, in which I tried to explain that nominalism is not the position
represented by the second of Jon's alternatives above.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
Jon Awbrey
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 9:36 AM
To: SUO
Subject: SUO: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOP. Note 16
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
I notice that a large number of issues, AKA questions,
are already being ignored by the procedure specifying
process already in process, if not yet to say progress.
I will begin a log of these. Here is one that is fresh
in my mind, at least, and so I will try to pluck it from
thin air, before it vanishes into same.
OOI. Ontology Of Issues
What is an issue, anyway?
Does the being of an issue consist in it's possessing a special
set of properties, independent of it's being called by that name,
or does the being of an issue consist solely in it's being named
as such?
I call it an issue.
Consider it logged.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o