RE: SUO: Re: SUOP Topic :> Definition Of Definition
I not only agree completely, but also applaud how well-put.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
John F. Sowa
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 1:33 PM
To: Jon Awbrey
Cc: SUO
Subject: Re: SUO: Re: SUOP Topic :> Definition Of Definition
Jon,
I would like to cite two of the greatest procedures documents
of all time: the Ten Commandments and the US Constitution.
Those documents are exceptionally short for the amount of
influence they have had over the centuries, and both of them
are singularly lacking in definitions. As evidence, see
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
U.S. CONSTITUTION
The absence of definitions has not diminished their importance,
but it has led to a voluminous literature consisting of case
histories and new interpretations of the original texts in terms
of those cases. If you examine the history of interpretations
in detail, the wisdom of *not* including definitions becomes
apparent: it would have been impossible for the original authors
to invent definitions that could have stood the test of time.
As it turns out, the wording of both documents has been remarkably
resiliant because the meaning of the texts has evolved along with
the meaning of the terms in those texts. And the case studies
in law courts (secular and ecclesiastical) have proved to be a
very effective way of updating the interpretations of both the
original texts and the words they contain.
I recommend that we adopt a similar policy: draw up a short
list of guidelines for SUO procedures and avoid wasting time
on the definitions of the terms. Inevitable questions will
arise, many of which we could not have anticipated in advance.
The proper time to make the interpretations more precise is
in answer to the actual questions that arise.
John Sowa