Re: SUO: Would like more discussion on normative wording
For all it's worth, I support Frank Farance's expression of despondency.
Both his feelings concerning this list and the observation that this group
has engaged in re-inventing the wheel (I would add that this group has
mostly developed and applied a methodology for enculeurs de mouches).
The absurdity has reached the point where the main topic of discussion is
Mr. Awbrey's email posting capabilities. Indeed, most posts are from Mr.
Awbrey and are about his posts.
I propose the following motions:
1. Scratch the PAR. Submit a new one with this scope:
This standard will specify Mr. Awbrey's right to post on a mailing list
independently of the nature of this list. This group will maintain an online
archive showing the world the meaning of abuse by self-proclaimed martyr.
2. Rename consequently the P1600.1 Standard Ontology Working Group, 'The Jon
Awbrey Show'.
3. Current members of the SUO WG who are still interested in the original
endeavor form a new group unrelated to The Jon Awbrey Show. Call it even as
concerns process development and just adopt standard IEEE documents and/or
suggest contextual extensions on the basis of these documents if the need is
averred.
Best,
Pierre
>From: Frank Farance <frank@farance.com>
>Reply-To: Frank Farance <frank@farance.com>
>To: "Standard Upper Ontology" <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
>Subject: SUO: Would like more discussion on normative wording
>Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:07:56 -0500
>
>
>At 16:44 2003-11-30 -0000, West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
> >
> > Dear Jim,
> >
> > I note your request to move the work on the procedures project away from
>the main list.
> >
> > I do not really think this would solve any problem.
> >
> > 1. The procedures work should be the concern of the whole group. In my
>view voting members have an obligation to be involved in their development.
> >
> > 2. It does not address the signal to noise ratio of Jon's posts.
> >
> > 3. I assume you are receiving some complaints about Jon's contributions
>that I have not seen and are not public. I could only wish that they would
>devote their time reviewing and commenting on the Procedures Document
>instead.
> >
> > 4. I might be critical of the manner of many of Jon's posts, but he has
>undoubtedly contributed much to the procedures document. Certainly more
>than any of his detractors.
>
>Matthew-
>
>I used to read the postings on the SUO list on a regular basis and I would
>occasionally contribute to them. However, my overall sense is that the SUO
>list lately has been at a low point. In other words, the discussion had
>degenerated into postings from mostly four people. Since 2003-10-01, there
>have been approximately 800 E-mail messages on the SUO list of which 80%
>(640 messages) is contributed by the following four people:
>
>~400 Jon Awbrey
>~100 John Sowa
>~80 Matthew West
>~60 Tom Johnston
>
>Jon A's contributes 50% of the E-mail traffic. Generally, I have little
>interest in reading Jon's E-mails because (1) there is little content, (2)
>they aren't concise, (3) they rarely make a relevant point, and (4) their
>esthetic appears to be more focused on style (rather than substance). So
>it takes a lot of effort to tease out the essence of Jon's E-mails -- it's
>simply not worth my while for relatively little payoff.
>
>Regarding John S's E-mail, I've expressed my frustration that his E-mails
>(in my opinion) are lots of handwaving without really confronting the
>following issues: (1) ultimately, there must be a computational aspect of
>his work and it hasn't been expressed (in his KR book, his E-mails, his
>presentations, etc.), and (2) one can only interpret CGs consistently if
>one includes John S in the interpretation process (read: inconsistent
>interpretation by others). In short, there's a lack of depth and a lack of
>precision.
>
>So that accounts for 62% of the E-mail traffic.
>
>For the discussion regarding the "procedures document", I was under the
>impression that we were going to start *technical* work on the EXPRESS (and
>other) stuff. The latest draft of the procedures document is just
>re-inventing several other documents, such as the IEEE Standards Companion
>and IEEE Operations Manual. Simply take these procedures and add a earlier
>"less-formal-phase" (i.e., a formal balloting and comment resolution
>process that is done in the WG, but not as formal as the Sponsor Ballot).
>
>I haven't complained too much about the "procedures document". These
>relevant documents (Standards Companion and Operations Manual) have been
>discuss earlier on this list. I just observe a common human behavior that
>I've seen elsewhere: the need to invent (or re-invent) so that the group
>has a sense of "ownership" of the work product (e.g., procedures document).
> And I appreciate that we are operating exclusively via E-mail with no
>in-person meetings -- so I'm willing to tolerate some reinvention if it
>produces stronger consensus, better working relationships, or both.
>
>In conclusion, in the past two months I've seen very little discussion that
>attracts me, i.e., discussion on the development of normative wording for
>technical specifications that relate (in some way) to the topic of
>"ontologies".
>
>-FF
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>Frank Farance, Farance Inc. T: +1 212 486 4700 F: +1 212 759 1605
>mailto:frank@farance.com http://farance.com
>Standards/Products/Services for Information/Communication Technologies
>
_________________________________________________________________
Need a shot of Hank Williams or Patsy Cline? The classic country stars are
always singing on MSN Radio Plus. Try one month free!
http://join.msn.com/?page=offers/premiumradio