SUO: RE: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedure Topics
Dear Tom,
See responses below.
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: Tom Johnston [mailto:tjohnston@acm.org]
> Sent: 20 November 2003 22:56
> To: Jon Awbrey; SUO; West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> Subject: RE: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedure Topics
>
>
> If this exercise of defining our basic terms before we get
> started is to
> have any value, it must be in clarifying the meaning of those
> terms so, in
> using them among ourselves, we are likely to use them in a
> more consistent
> way, and thus be less likely to misunderstand one another.
>
> Not wishing to be offensive, I still have to say that the
> definitions given
> below not only fail to clarify the meanings of the terms,
> they make it more
> likely that we will deviate from standard usage and end up
> misunderstanding
> one another. See the embedded TJ remarks below.
<snip>
> SUOP Topic :> Definition Of Audience
>
> MW: More properly Target Audience: Those who the document is
> intended to address and who need to be able to understand it.
> TJ: could someone be a member of a target audience of a
> document, and not be
> able to
> understand it?
MW: Yes, if I wrote it in such a way that it assumed knowledge that
they did not have.
> Perhaps Newton presenting a copy of the
> Principia to the King
> of England? Or
> my writing a requirements document for a financial data mart,
> and putting
> the CIO's name on
> the address list? I think the King, and the CIO, are part of
> the target
> audience.
>
> SUOP Topic :> Definition Of Definition
>
> MW: The meaning with which this term is
> used in the context of this document.
> TJ: this is a joke, right? Or else a perfectly reasonable
> refusal to attempt
> a definition.
MW: Not really. It is identifying a contenxt in which the definition
is used. Other definitions for the term might be used in other
contexts. I could for example have said that this is the definition
of the term for use throughout the SUO deliverables, not just this
one.
>
> SUOP Topic :> Definition Of Deliverable
>
> MW: The desired output of a project or programme of work.
> TJ: (a) weekly status reports are a desired output of most
> projects, but
> they're not deliverables.
MW: Good point.
> (b) What is a programme of work vs. a project?
MW: None, I have just been using both terms.
>
> SUOP Topic :> Definition Of Example
>
> MW: Some members of the class exemplified.
> TJ: "exemplified" used to define "example"?
MW: I've made a better attempt at this in the Procedures
document - but I agree with you that I don't think we need
to define this because we are bang in the middle of ordinary
usage.
>
> SUOP Topic :> Definition Of Issue
>
> MW: A definition of Formal Issue is given in the revised document.
>
> SUOP Topic :> Definition Of Objective
>
> MW: A state of affairs that is desired by the
> organisation/project stating the objective.
> TJ: (a) so an objective is a desired state of affairs of a
> project, and a
> deliverable is a desired
> output of a project. (b) Is a functioning Sales History Data
> Mart a state of
> affairs, or an "output"?
MW: Both.
>
> SUOP Topic :> Definition Of Principle
>
> MW: A guiding truth, but note that you should neve let
> your principles prevent you from doing what's right.
> TJ: Does anyone understand "guiding truth" any better than he
> understands
> "principle"? (This is actually
> THE question to ask of any definition.)
>
> SUOP Topic :> Definition Of Procedure
>
> MW: A sequence of tasks to achieve an objective.
> TJ: how about "some ordering" of tasks? Sequences are just one kind of
> ordering, viz. the kind that doesn't
> allow any tasks to be carried out in parallel.
MW: OK, but this is one that I haven't felt a need to include in the
document, and the word is not used in it in the latest (unpublished)
draft.
>
> SUOP Topic :> Definition Of Process
>
> MW: Synonym for Procedure
> TJ: pretty non-standard definition, in my opinion. There are
> procedures for
> carrying out some processes,
> but not all. I don't have a procedure for getting a group
> together to go out
> to lunch. But getting the group together is a process.
> (Maybe, alluding to
> CMM terminology, a procedure is what makes a process a
> "repeatable process"
> (CMM Stage 2).)
MW: Just sounds like a process at a lower level of granularity to me.
>
> JA: Those are the topics that arise in my mind for the time being.
> There will no doubt be others arising in the fullness of time.
>
> JA: It goes without saying that you go without saying at your
> own risk.
>
> MW: So I've had my say.
> TJ: again, with apologies for the frankness, but does anyone
> really think
> that the exercise of producing these definitions created anything
> worthwhile? Are any of these definitions clearer than the definiendum?
MW: I agree with your main point, and I think that only a subset of the
terms that Jon has raised need to be defined in the Procedures document.
However, I accept that we should provide definitions for key terms where
perhaps a restricted or specialised meaning is intended.
Please see the Procedures Document for where these are at present. That
is where I am recording my considered responses to Jon's ruminations.
>
> Dully recorded,
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
>