SUO: RE: Re: SUOP Topic :> Elicitation Of Definition
Dear Jon,
See response 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: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@att.net]
> Sent: 23 November 2003 14:13
> To: SUO
> Subject: SUO: Re: SUOP Topic :> Elicitation Of Definition
>
>
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> SUOPT :> Definition. Note 8
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> | Hit The Ground Running Head
> |
> | Let me tell you what I had in mind by raising this topic.
> | It was not meant to start another one of those recursive,
> | diverting, consummately frivolous navel engagements that
> | unpragmatic axiomatics is so susceptible of devolving to.
> |
> | SUOPT :> Definition 02. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11652.html
>
> YAH. SUOPT Outline. http://suo.ieee.org/email/thrd1.html#11635
> IRT. SUOP 16. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11622.html
>
> SUO WG, Procedure PL,
>
> The time has come to raise the issue issue to a higher level,
> to raise it from the age of a baby X issue, where X = issue,
> to the age of strapping X issue, where X is rather more open.
>
> So permit me, please, to raise the issue:
>
> | Does the being of an X consist in it's possessing a particular
> | "set of properties" (SOP), independent of it's being called by
> | the name "X", or does the being of an X as such consist solely
> | in it's being named as such?
MW: The definition given in Annex 1 is:
documentation of a defect identified in a deliverable of the
Standard Upper Ontology Working Group
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
>