SUO: Re: SUOP Topic :> Definition Of Definition
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOPT :> Definition. Note 12
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
In: SUOP Topic Outline. http://suo.ieee.org/email/thrd1.html#11635
Or: SUOP Topic Outline. http://suo.ieee.org/email/thrd2.html#11635
Re: SUOPT :> Definition 08. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11776.html
Re: SUOPT :> Definition 10. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11801.html
Re: SUOPT :> Definition 11. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11806.html
Matthew,
I am "guardedly optimistic" (GO) that it will now be safe to go back to using
the term Definition (QV) in both its more ordinary and its technical senses,
as those who objected to the very idea of Definition have Zoom^2-ed on past
in a faster lane to register their remarks about "registries of theories",
and I am assuming, in a guardedly optimistic way, that at least some of
the theories rolling off that LOT will have the standard equipment, or
at least the lexury sport options, of one or more Definitions under
the hood, or bonnet, as your "community of interpretation" (COI)
may happen to call it.
So, putting those hopefully transient distractions aside,
for their lack of any permanent or stable moment, let us
return to the task at hand.
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:
| 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?
BTW, this is known as the "2-Furcation Of Nominal And Real Thinking".
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
JA: Sorry, I think my terseness led to confusion --
normally I get there by the other expressway --
I'll unpack another layer of the truncations.
JA: 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.
That is my general sense, too, but I think that
it will be necessary to examine the matter more
carefully as we proceed with this inquiry. For
the sake of places to break out these questions,
I have introduced Topic headings for Defect and
Raising, under which we may hope to focus a bit
better on the task of prospective clarification:
QV. SUOPT :> Defect. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11711.html
QV. SUOPT :> Raising. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11820.html
NB_1. As I'm sure you already understand, and as I'm sure that
anyone who has routinely employed the Method that is often
called "Stepwise Development" (QV) already fully recognizes,
one naturally expects to find very little information under
these Topic heads when they are first introduced, indeed, it
is a maxim of the technique to begin with Minimal Commitment
to anything but the Recognition of the issue under some name,
or the "Maxium Entropy Method" (MEM) as aficionados-&-nadas
of physics-based and statistics-based <esc>-argot will tend
to express it. Still, unless one has a specific point to
point to, and until more pointed information has formed
about the topic in question, it is the most convenient
tack to attach in passing a link to the main trunk of
the prospectively developing Topic being referenced.
In fine, one may need to hit the <Thread Next> cue
one or more times in order to access the "Meat" on
the Menu, if there's any ready for consumption yet.
NB_2. I apologize for explaining what was probably already
patently obvious to you and the larger percentile of
our Intended Audience, but ongoing events put me in
the muddle of revising my Cumulative Default or my
Nominal Distribution with respect to what may be
Obvious to portions of our Intended Audience.
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.
That still sounds a bit "off" to me, but its "offitude"
may have more to do with the residual equivocalities in
the term Issue than anthing else. I am working as hard
as I can to shift my attention to those Real Conditions,
Situations, or States of Affairs that we often point to
under the ostensibilities of Defect (QV) & Problem (QV):
QV. SUOPT :> Defect. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11711.html
QV. SUOPT :> Problem 01. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11723.html
QV. SUOPT :> Problem 02. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11755.html
QV. SUOPT :> Problem 03. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11765.html
JA: 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.
It still seems to me like "Formal Issue Statement"
is the best title for the defining text you offer,
so let me append that we try it the following way:
| Formal Issue Statement :=
|
| Documentation of a defect identified in a deliverable
| of the Standard Upper Ontology Working Group (SUO WG).
I think that we are approaching the verge of a general Recognition (QV)
with regard to the significance of the distinction in Roles (QV) between
the role of an Object (QV) and the role of a Sign (QV) in Formal (QV) and
especially critically reflective modes of communication and documentation.
QV. SUOP Topic :> Object. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11666.html
QV. SUOP Topic :> Recognition. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11764.html
QV. SUOP Topic :> Role. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11682.html
QV. SUOP Topic :> Sign. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11680.html
Jon Awbrey
PS. I begin to sense that it may be apt, on behalf of our
PAR Scope And Purpose Autorized Education Sub-Mission
to place a byte or three of Ancillary Information with
regard to the erstwhile well-known Stepwise Development
Method into our Local Resource Files. So next to that.
But my times on tap, at least, this tap, will be just
a mite sporadic over the Inter-Missionary Gratulatio.
JA.
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o