SUO: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures -- Correction
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
In: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures.
http://suo.ieee.org/email/thrd5.html#11584
Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures 20.
http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11861.html
Allow me to amend a previous paragraph, in which the end of
the sentence that I had in mind at the outset thereof wholly
slipped my mind by the time I commuted the big middle thereof.
I blame it on a defect of caffeination, and here is my amends:
| Issue. Ontology Of Procedure
|
| Yes, I really meant that. Indeed, I have only recently seen the light
| that a "Generic Ontology" (GO) -- such as we are trying to realize and
| specify in the SUO Work, and such as we find ourselves almost forced to
| hammer out, albeit as a greatly reduced model, in a road test prototype,
| or a rougher, ruder, more rudimentary simulation of the full scale model,
| all in order just to bring a few bits of clarity and comprehension to the
| development of our own Procedure Guidelines -- might actually be useful.
|
| Isn't that a curious development? Not to force the auto-simile too far
| down the road, to the point of some fractal recursion, perhaps, it does
| raise the question: If the SUO Group does not find a Generic Ontology,
| say, with regard to the Ontology Of Procedure, useful for the guidance
| of its own real activities in the real world, Then Who Will?
|
| That is the Question.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o