SUO: RE: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
Dear Jon,
I do not see this as forcing some people to sit on one
side or the other. Only as a way of being more effective
with one rule for all.
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: 30 November 2003 05:16
> To: SUO; West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> Subject: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
>
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> SUOP. Note 25
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> In: SUOP Outline. http://suo.ieee.org/email/thrd5.html#11584
> Hx: SUOP 22. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11868.html
> Hx: SUOP 23. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11873.html
> Hx: SUOP 24. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11877.html
>
> MW: I also support the idea of having web pages (actually folders)
> under the editorial control of any SUO member who asked for
> the facility. These can be easily linked to from e-mails,
> and facilitate the development of ideas, rather than
> clogging the e-mail lists.
>
> MW: However, for this to be successful Jon must buy in
> to the concept, so I would be interested in how he
> saw himself using this if it were available.
>
> Matthew,
>
> I get up every morning and try to figure what sort of productive work
> I can do toward the goals of this project. I have the knowledge and
> skills that I have, not some other set of resources. I work with the
> tools that I find on the lot. If other materials and operators become
> available, I will explore them to the extent that it makes sense to me
> to do so, and I will make use of them to the extent that I deem them
> to help with the problems that I see.
>
> There is no lack of work that needs to be done.
> John's allusions to the OED are probably right on.
> Even if we personally have another ten years to work
> on this, I don't believe that we can rationally expect
> to do much more than construct the blanks for others to
> fill in later. None of this is going to happen unless we
> attract a whole lot more public-spirited expertise to the
> construction site, which is not going to happen if there
> keeps being all this "shut-the-hell-upping" about the
> noise that always goes along with construction work.
> The only question worth asking about an individual
> work effort is whether it contributes to the goals.
> If it does, then the noise of doing that work is an
> inconvenient side-effect of needed work. One either
> tolerates it or finds some other technical means to
> reduce the side-effect without losing the benefits
> of the main effect. If IEEE/SUO has an interest
> in supporting this work, they would be glad to
> find ways to remove these obstacles to it.
>
> Partitioning the space that we work in and adjoining
> extra facilities and resources are potential benefits,
> so long as they serve the purposes of organization and
> communication and do not act to stifle and obstruct them.
> But forcing folks to inhabit one side of a partition, and
> restricting them to use their so-called "separate but equal"
> facilities -- that is a ghetto by any other word. Perhaps you
> think I over-dramatize. But I have off-list correspondents who
> are literally "afraid" and "fearful" in their own words to enter
> into the discussions on the main SUO list because of the chilling
> effect of leadership's double-bind ultimata and the intolerance of
> authoritarian bullies for the opinions of anyone who has a slightly
> variant way of seeing or doing things. This is how things really are.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
>