SUO: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Matthew,
Force is as force does.
It is nice to describe things in idealized terms,
the way that it's supposed to work, the way that
it ought to be, but I have decribed the way that
it really is, and that's a sad state of affairs,
indeed.
Coercion aside -- another thing far easier wished than actualized --
there is a kind of force that arises from constant distortions in
the description of the real situation.
I said that I'd put aside my other topics to work on the Procedures.
I was skeptical at first of the possibility of the Procedure motion
having any positive effect, initially voting against it until later
convinced by your sincerity, and I was leary of it for all of the
easily foreseeable, because previously experienced reasons that
we have seen develop since Jim's 26 November attack. I made
the concession of putting my other more substantive work
aside, transferring it to the Ontology List, and then
all but ceasing to have time for it, in order to work
on this "Authorized Project Starter Document", being
one of the few people actually working within the
de jure guidelines of Jim's own directive on the
score of "relevance", which is de facto ignored
by the lion's share and the devil's hindmost
share of participants in this Working Group.
What good has that done? Has any of these
hue and cry babies been satisfied by that
first concession? No. Indeed, the very
idea that somebody might make some kind
of systematic progress along this line
only seems to enrage them all the more.
And that's the way that it really is.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
>
> 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
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o