SUO: RE: Proposed Conclusions and Actions from Vote
Dear James,
What you propose as a way forward is acceptable to me. Three comments:
1. I suggest the merged ontology is labelled as "Work in Progress".
2. I would suggest a loose and informal interpretation of the control on the
document.
3. From the discussion around the document, it is not clear to me that a
"merged ontology" is an appropriate final outcome. So a name like "initial
ontology", or some other name based on the metaphysical tradition(s) it is
drawn from might be more appropriate.
Regards
Matthew
============================================
Matthew West
Operations & Asset Management
Shell Services International
H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929
Mobile: +44 7796 336538
E-mail: Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com
http://www.shellservices.com/
============================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
> [mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil]
> Sent: 14 February 2001 02:53
> To: 'Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)'
> Subject: SUO: Proposed Conclusions and Actions from Vote
>
>
>
> SUO,
>
> Final vote results on Merged Ontology (see ballot
> question below)
> are:
>
> YES = 11
> NO = 9
> ABSTAIN = 4
>
> YES votes were from: John Thompson, Adam Pease, John
> Velman, Graham
> Horn, Roberto Bordogna, Ian Niles, Douglas McDavid, John
> Sowa, Fredrick
> Chase, Frank Farance, Jay Halcomb.
>
> NO votes were from: Matthew West, Chris Partridge, Robert Kent,
> Stefano Borgo, John Dickert, Francis McCabe, Lee Auspitz, Bob
> Spillers,
> Chris Angus.
>
> ABSTAINs were from: Pat Hayes, Michael Uschold, Sofia
> Pinto, Nicola
> Guarino
>
> Please correct me if I have tabulated your vote incorrectly.
>
> Observations:
>
> 1. The IEEE default voting rule within a working group is a
> simple majority
> of YES vs. NO votes, with ABSTAINs not included in
> determining majority.
>
> 2. This vote was presented as an unofficial straw poll, because we are
> currently establishing the list of official voters.
>
> 3. We previously established considerable opposition to
> calling the Merged
> Ontology a "Base Document," and have since modified the
> question to remove
> this label.
>
> 4. All comments that were directly related to the question
> have been posted,
> and received much discussion. Some votes did change as a result of
> discussion and are reflected in the above results. Those
> comments that
> related to improving the document were not to be addressed
> until and unless
> the group decided to work on this document. This is the way ballot
> resolution works. We try to improve documents and build consensus by
> resolving comments.
>
> 5. This is a very early-on vote in the development of the
> proposed document.
> It will eventually need to gain 75% approval from the final
> balloting group.
>
> Proposed Conclusions:
>
> 1. A simple majority voted YES to the question (copy below),
> therefore, this
> vote has passed, but by a recognized thin margin.
>
> 2. Aside from the thin approval margin, the group appears to
> have rather
> strong consensus that work should proceed on the Merged
> Ontology. This
> comes even from many of those who voted NO, who did so for
> the reasons in
> the posted comments.
>
> Proposed Actions resulting from above:
>
> Step 1: Post link to Merged Ontology on SUO web site at
> http://suo.ieee.org.
> as follows:
>
> Documents under development by this working group:
> 1. Merged Ontology <link address>
>
> Step 2: Select a Technical Editor for Merged Ontology document, to be
> accomplished by issuing a 'Call for volunteers' followed by
> an open and fair
> selection process.
>
> Step 3: Place Merged Ontology Document under control of SUO
> WG, requiring
> Technical Editor to gain approval from group before making
> changes. This
> would be mostly via an informal consensus process, but would
> also include
> formal votes (with comment resolution) every 3-6 months.
>
> Step 4: Technical Editor will resolve all comments from the
> previous vote
> that dealt with improvements to Merged Ontology. Additional
> comments will
> also be solicited.
>
> Are there any objections to these Observations, Proposed
> Conclusions, or Proposed Actions?
>
> Jim Schoening
> Chair, SUO WG
>
> ===============================
> The completed call for vote follows:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
> [mailto:James.Schoening@mail1.monmouth.army.mil]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 7:03 AM
> To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subject: SUO: Revised Call for Vote on Merged Ontology
>
>
>
> SUO Participants,
>
> 1. Since the prior vote had a variety of problems, it is
> amended as follows
> to focus on the key question.
>
> 2. If you have already cast a vote (and received
> acknowledgement) you don't
> need to vote again, unless you wish to change your vote or comments.
> However, this is an open list and all are welcome to post or
> repost their
> opinions.
>
> 3. This message is a call for a vote on the question:
>
> Should the IEEE Standard Upper Ontology Working Group
> commence work on the Merged Ontology as posted by
> Ian Niles with the intent of attempting to develop
> it into a final standards document?
>
> 4. Background: If this vote passes, this document will
> change from being
> the work (and under the control) of a group of individuals to
> being the work
> (and under the control) of the SUO WG. A Technical Editor
> will need to be
> appointed or elected, who will need group approval before
> making changes.
> This does not require frequent formal votes for every change. A better
> approach for daily or weekly updates is to develop consensus
> by resolving
> objections, as we did when revising the Scope and Purpose.
> In other words,
> the editor posts a suggested change and asks for any
> objections. Items that
> do not have clear consensus would be accumulated. Then,
> every 3-6 months
> the group could have a formal vote on what would be the next 'Working
> Draft.' Comments would be submitted and resolved before
> approval as the next
> Working Draft.
>
> 5. The purpose of this vote is to determine the level of
> consensus we have
> for focusing work on this document. In other words, we need
> to decide if we
> are going to go down this path or not. A working group may
> decide to work
> on more than one document, so anyone else is free to submit one.
>
> 6. The primary purpose of this vote is NOT to propose
> improvements to the
> document, unless they are major enough for you to vote
> against focusing work
> on this document. However, such general improvement comments
> are welcome
> and will be resolved (but not unless and until the vote
> passes. There would
> be no sense in resolving comments if the group does not want
> to proceed with
> this document.).
>
> 7. Since we are still in the process of establishing official
> voting rights,
> I suggest we first conduct this as an unofficial straw poll, such that
> anyone can cast a vote. After resolving all comments, if
> consensus is not
> clear, we will have the option of conducting a formal vote
> (once voting
> rights are established).
>
> 8. Your options for voting are YES (comments optional), NO (comments
> required), or ABSTAIN (comments optional).
>
> 9. You may send your votes either to me or to this reflector.
>
> 10. Please vote by Feb 1, 2001.
>
> Jim Schoening
> Chair, SUO WG
>