SUO: Epi*Question
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
E*Q. Note 1
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Matthew,
The first distrubutions from IEEE SUO that I find in
my "Stand Up Ontology" folder are dated 12/31/69, but
that is just because some mailers were still working
through the d'0h0h problem in July of '00. I have
some spare time right at the moment, which will not
last forever, and I have somewhat better focus than
I normally have, so I am trying to make the most of
it toward some useful end. I am conscious of the
good fortune of others that they have day jobs,
plus many other more pressing responsibilties,
and I would not want their fascination with
what goes on here to waylay them from that --
this means you, Murray!
I and others have repeatedly suggested numerous avenues
of approach that ought to be explored toward a solution
of the "Volume" problem. Is this a Real Defect in our
present Medium of Collaboration? I really don't know.
But I do know what people normally do when they have Real Problems,
and that is to Inquire into Real Solutions to these Real Problems.
Case 1. "Not A Real Problem" (NARP)
If there had not been in this Group a previous History of
Raising this Issue mostly when somebody or other did not
like thinking about the Practical Consequences of what
somebody else was saying, then perhaps I personally
would not be so circumspect about its Reality as
an Issue.
And if this Volume Issue did not magically disappear, on a tranisent basis,
in Statistical Independence of the Real Volume level, according to my best
seat-of-the-pants Estimate, as soon as the Undiscussable Content Of Message
problem went away, as I have seen numerous other former Participants in this
Group with such messages go away quietly after a few tries at getting their
Information through to the Reception of this Group, then perhaps I would be
incrementally less Skeptical about the peculier occasions of its Raising.
And if there was some general Consensus that whatever Trial Solutions
are proposed would But Of Course Apply to all Participants as Peers,
then perhaps I would begin to regard this a Real Problem, instead
of a Nominal Problem, that is to say, a Problem In Name Only.
For those are some of the Properties Of Testable Actualities
that would come, and did in fact come foremost to my mind
when I Inquire into the Qualifications of a Real Problem.
But the History of the "Volume And Pertinence Problem",
as I have experienced it in this Group, has yet to push
my Estimate of its Reality over the Threshold Of Belief.
Case 2. A Real Problem (ARP)
On the other hand, since it constitutes Wise Heuristic Advice
to consider the multiple logical alternatives of these Issues
in Parallel, suppose that the "Volume And Pertinence Problem"
really does have more CORE (q.v.) Content than my diminishing
acronym for it disappears to suggest, then what would be the
Action that we should have some Non-Vanishing Expectation of
seeing happen in this Group?
That is the Question.
Rational Approaches to Real Problems -- for all of us
are Fully Cognizant that the Rational can but hope to
Approximate the Real in general -- Normally, and thus,
to wit, Norm-Ably, incur upon All Rational Persons who
would become Real Problem Solvers to Commence with the
Institution of a Competent Analysis of the Problem,
just for Starters.
How close is the IEEE P(ennsylvania Ave?) 1600.1 Standard Upper Ontology
Working Group to getting up to the Mark of this Starting Line? Hecate!
They have as yet to enter a State of Concurrence and Resoultion that
There Exists A Reality, much less what its Qualifications might be.
Now that, I offer, is A Real Problem.
I recommend that SUO WG work on that.
I will lay out more specific explanations of my current trial approaches to the
"History Of Process Problem" (HOPP) and the "Historical Ignorance Problem" (HIP),
the later my Diagnosis of the "Going Nowhere As Fast As Possible Problem" (GNAFAPP)
later on in the day.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Matthew West wrote:
>
> Dear Jon,
>
> OK. Stand by for what I hope will be seen as constructive criticism.
>
> I will speak strictly personally, since it
> would be inappropriate to assume others see
> things in the same way.
>
> For me the issue with your postings is not to do with the proposal
> that we need to look at basic scientific, math, and Comp Sci knowledge
> as the start point. I agree with you, and generally in fact with most
> of the points that I can discern you are making. And I am content you
> slow read whatever you like onto the Ontology List. I try to at least
> note the subjects you think worthy of this treatment.
>
> For me the problem is how you do it, and in particular the bandwidth you consume.
> Taking myself, I can probably afford about 1 hour a day going through what is on
> the SUO lists and contributing to SUO deliverables like the Procedures Document.
> I usually find that at least half that time, and often more is spent processing
> your posts. This detracts from what I might contribute myself.
>
> If I might indulge in an analogy, part of the issue is the nature of some of your
> posts, which are like an unbalanced meal, where the content is mostly garnish with
> very little meat. I know I often struggle to discern the point you are making in
> some posts, and often find I have given up before I have found it. It would help
> me if you followed the maxims for a good speach "tell them what your going to
> tell them, tell them, tell them what you've told them".
>
> Sometimes I am just baffled. Your recent series of posts apparently just giving
> headings for terms that might need definition seems to me to achieve very little.
> What I know I would have appreciated is if you had offered to keep privately a list
> of terms that you thought particularly significant and develop definitions for them
> that might go towards an overall SUO Glossary as a possible SUO deliverable on the
> web site.
>
> Yet you often make what I find good and useful contributions. Most of your
> comments on the procedures document have been very helpful, and I think in
> particular of the two posts you made working through the current draft.
> These I really appreciate.
>
> Yours in good faith.
>
> 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: 24 November 2003 03:16
> > To: John F. Sowa
> > Cc: Jay Halcomb; SUO; cg@cs.uah.edu
> > Subject: SUO: Re: Meta*Question
> >
> > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> >
> > John,
> >
> > Yes, we all have our personal ethic, norm, inner voice, daimon, whatever.
> > You follow yours, I follow mine, mostly I'd be happy with that, as you say,
> > "until" a problem arises. A problem has arisen. At any rate -- slow ball,
> > fast ball, curve ball -- I see a foul, and so I must call it as I see it.
> >
> > There is a fundamental practical contradiction in the conduct of this Group.
> >
> > One of the things that I dislike about off-list chatter about
> > official issues is that I that always end up having to repeat
> > the same thing again on list, and I usually always express it
> > even worse the 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, ..., infinty^th time around.
> > So I think this time I'll just excerpt what I alrady said:
> >
> > Note 1.
> >
> > sorry, slip of the fingers caused me to offlist you.
> > what you say is something that i would have believed
> > three years ago, but it just aint so on present data.
> > there is a fundamental practical contradiction between
> > the explicit rules and the implicit rules in this group,
> > and until a few more people start to see it, we will get
> > absolutely no real work done of any kind. i tried to make
> > it obvious by juxtaposing jim's directive to me with a post
> > from you of 7th degree imp-of-an-imp relevance to the central
> > problem, but you picked the 'silence assents' option, which was
> > the only one that i had not expected from you.
> >
> > Note 2.
> >
> > when you get done with doctrines about what "thou shalt not do",
> > you are always free to undertake any constructive substantive
> > activity you can think of. i am still waiting for your 2nd
> > on my motion to adopt the pragmatic maxim as rule number 1.
> > whether you tumble to it or not, i am doing constructive
> > work under this cover, and until it becomes obvious that
> > you can't build a "modern" ontology without a research
> > base and expertise in multiple relevant domains, this
> > horse is doa, and all i can do is try to educate the
> > riders up to speed about what computer science and
> > about 20 other subjects really are about in 2003.
> > we have quite a long ways to go with that, and
> > you 'could' help lots, but you are not facing
> > the realities of what we really have here.
> > it is mostly opportunities being wasted,
> > not time.
> >
> > Note 3.
> >
> > totally serious -- i don't say "i move" in that
> > context without meaning it. what do you think
> > will happen?
> >
> > you know we are never going to have any progress as long
> > as jim restricts discussion, at the behest of [whoever],
> > whether capriciously or consistently, to the albatrosses
> > of current starter docs that we have. rk's iff could be
> > made sense of, bit by bit, but you have to start at the
> > bottom with mac lane or something, not in stratos city.
> > but jim doesn't even know enough about it to know that
> > almost everything i talk about is just nuts and bolts
> > workaday concrete categories done up for the millions
> > without expecting them all to bow down and worship
> > it instead of just working with it. i have been
> > converting logic into functional and computable
> > form since about 1980, but the scl crowd can't
> > even figure out that the functional interp is
> > sine qua non for doing anything significant.
> > everybody in math and theoretical comp sci,
> > as opposed to phil of math, knows this.
> >
> > That is just how I see it.
> > My daimon made me say it.
> >
> > Jon Awbrey
> >
> > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> >
> > John F. Sowa wrote:
> > >
> > > Jon,
> > >
> > > The guidelines I follow are the same ones that I proposed when
> > > the question about limiting the number of email postings was
> > > discussed a couple of months ago (sometime in August, I think):
> > >
> > > 1. Limit the number of new topics that any single subscriber
> > > may initiate to a small number per day -- no more than 2 or 3.
> > >
> > > 2. But allow a larger number of replies to ongoing discussions --
> > > especially permit follow-up responses to direct questions
> > > and ongoing debates.
> > >
> > > I find it very difficult to navigate the SUO archive, so I wasn't
> > > able to retrieve the exact thread. But the discussion about
> > > limiting the number of postings seemed to get resolved or put
> > > aside, and no further discussion on this topic was pursued.
> > >
> > > But that is the principle I follow: don't clutter the list with
> > > too many new topics, but respond when somebody addresses you.
> > >
> > > John
> >
> > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o