SUO: RE: RE: RE: Proposed Conclusions and Actions from Vote
Dear Graham,
Something like that would be fine.
I guess I was also not happy about the word "merged" in the title, or at
least not without some qualification.
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: Horn, Graham [mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au]
> Sent: 16 February 2001 01:42
> To: West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK; 'Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)'
> Subject: SUO: RE: RE: Proposed Conclusions and Actions from Vote
>
>
>
> Matthew,
> . Might I suggest version 0.001, rather than s.t. like
> "initial ontology". This wouldn't constrain versioning so much.
>
>
>
> Cheers Graham Horn
> National Data Standards Unit
> Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
> ================================================
> Phone: 02.6244.1094
> Fax: 02.6244.1199
> Email: Graham.Horn@aihw.gov.au <mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK
> [mailto:Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 8:22 PM
> To: 'Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)'
> Subject: 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
> >
>