SUO: RE: Re: SUOP Topic :> Determination Of Definition
Dear Jon,
See comment 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: 24 November 2003 05:24
> To: SUO
> Subject: SUO: Re: SUOP Topic :> Determination Of Definition
>
>
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> SUOPT :> Definition. Note 10
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> In: SUOP Topic Outline.
> http://suo.ieee.org/email/thrd1.html#11635
> Re: SUOPT :> Definition 08. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11776.html
>
> JA: 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.
>
> JA: So permit me, please, to raise the issue:
>
> JA: | 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:
>
> | Formal Issue :=
> |
> | Documentation of a defect
> | identified in a deliverable
> | of the Standard Upper Ontology
> | Working Group
>
> Matthew,
>
> Sorry, I think my terseness led to confusion --
> normally I get there by the other expressway --
> I'll unpack another layer of the truncations.
>
> This was not really about the Issue question --
> I have put a hold on worrying about that for
> the time being, but since you raise it again,
> if that's your current definition of <Issue>,
> it looks like there is an object-sign mix-up
> again, since Documentation is a 'sign' thing,
MW: You are right. I was trying to hard not to make
issue and defect synonyms, when I am sure there
is a difference.
MW: How about: A Formal Issue is a defect in a
deliverable that has been identified and
documented according to the procedures in this
document.
> while Issues are 'objects' of discussion and
> thought, that is, the ostensibly, putatively
> real conditions or states of affairs that we
> document in texts. Ok, if you mean an issue
> of a magazine, no, the sorts without bullets,
> then maybe issues fit the bill as signs, but
> I feel fairly safe that you didn't mean that.
> Speaking of Bills -- no, I won't go there ...
> but your defining statement sounds more like
> a Bill of Particulars -- maybe you could dub
> it a "Formal Issue Statement" if you want to
> retain that same definiens. Anyway, on hold.
>
> And too late to think now.
> Back to it in the morning.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
>