SUO: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedure Topics
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOPT. Note 10
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOPT Outline. http://suo.ieee.org/email/thrd1.html#11635
JA = Jon Awbrey
TJ = Tom Johnson
Referring to:
SUOP 16. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11622.html
Repeated here:
JA: 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.
JA: OOI. Ontology Of Issues
JA: What is an issue, anyway?
JA: 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?
JA: I call it an issue.
Consider it logged.
See Also:
SUOPT :> Issue 01. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11639.html
TJ responded:
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.
Tom,
I am cognizant that I am answering one of your notes from yesterday,
and that you are likely to have caught up a bit more on the current
issues since that time. This parent of all issues was raised a bit
before I had instituted my current "form of organization" (FOO) and
so it was already a bit or three of a problem for me just to recall
how it all began.
Here is 3-passel of what appear to be the roots of hassle:
SUOP 07. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11599.html
McDavid: http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11601.html
J. Sowa: http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11605.html
You will note that we were, and continue to be, engauged
in a Procedural discussion, a Sanctioned Activity of the
SUO Group, duly discussed, voted on, and adopted by vote.
The issue is a practical, procedural one, and some basis
for decision, call that what we will, must be decided on.
It is but one of many such Issues/Questions that are
logically and practically involved in delivering the
Prospective Deliverable that is the present business.
So let us try to address the question
with that context and purpose in mind.
Sure, just let us try.
I chose "Definition Of" (DO) as a rubric tag for entering
these Topics more formally into my log of the discussions.
I had earlier used "Ontology Of" and "Issue Of", but came
to fear that those sorts of tags might be too distracting.
Had I known what sort of distractions were about to ensue,
I'd've better chosen "Say Anything Sensible About" (SASA)
as the running row leader.
So, edit your copies and your memories as follows:
Substitute "Say Anything Sensible About" (SASA) for "Definition Of" (DO).
IF it be false,
Let some amend;
IF it be truth,
Then let it be.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o