Re: SUO: Re: Focus and Volume
Jon,
Thank you for hearing so well and
responding so clearly and directly.
A few more-specific comments are below.
-Fred
Jon Awbrey wrote:
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> | They didn't want 'em good --
> | They wanted 'em Tuesday ...
> |
> | R^2, 'Apologia Pro Cinema Sua'
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Frederick N. Chase wrote:
> >
> > Jon Awbrey wrote:
> > >
> JA: 3. Square One is that everybody who makes a contribution to the
> > > main list probably does so because they honestly believe that
> > > it has a bearing on what a State of the Art Third Millennium
> > > Ontology System ought to look like, even if that makes some
> > > State of the Art 1979 folks uncomfortable with the amount of
> > > work and the number of different expertises that would really
> > > be required to avoid cranking out yet another standard that
> > > all innovative people will have to work against from Day One.
> >
> > There's a spectrum of views on the extent to which the SUO
> > should be pushing the state of the art as opposed to more
> > simply reflecting current accepted/best practice.
> >
> > In my opinion, a shared statement on where we are along this spectrum
> > would give us a metric which would identify a good fraction of all
> > previously posted paragraphs as not relevant (to the group per se).
> >
> JA: So perceptions about what is "relevant" and what is not, what
> > > is "general" and what is "specific", are what they always are,
> > > personal opinions ...
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Fred,
>
> My remark was, of course, partly an example of the
> very "progressive fallacy" that I so often condemn --
> it is the sort of thing that I hope I say only when
> provoked, and if it extends the rhetorical provocation
> one step further it has pretty much exhausted its entire
> useful function in the service of any logical discussion.
>
> But your remark raises a host of issues, ones that I thought
The unsettled state of agreement on
the extent to which research (1890's, 2000's, and in-between)
must be incorporated into an IEEE SUO is, I think, the source
of most of the (unproductive) friction.
> were settled, but now see have only been lurking beneath the
> surface all this time. I guess that I had been reading the
> word "standard" to have the connotation of an "ideal model",
> a "standard of comparison", or a "touchstone", in effect,
I'd say that the above is extremely extremely ambitious, for
an IEEE standard.
In particlar, I'd like to suggest that
standard here only secondarily means standard-of-comparison.
Wouldn't it be a success if we produce a standard that is
no better than half the existing IEEE standards?
I'd say that the below is extremely ambitious as
an IEEE standard.
> an existing exemplar that approaches to what is the best
> that can be achieved, given the current state of an art.
>
> Now, it makes no sense to me to simply write out a "wish list"
> of capacities and features that we would all like to realize,
> nor does it make sense to demand of others what nobody could
> actualize with the means available, much less the prescribers.
>
> And I guess that my sense of the current scene in Ontology Systems
> is that we have not even come close to what could be achieved if
> we would just set to work with the tools that are laying around
> waiting to be used like we meant it.
Committees rarely achieve at this level, do they?
I'd like to think we're different, but I doubt it.
>
> So I guess that I have always taken it for granted that the "work"
> of this "working group" would be a lot more like "work on what is"
> rather than the simple acceptance and accreditation of one or the
> other established order, or yet another battle between corporate
In my opinion, whether we
accept and accredit one or the other established order
or not
is a slightly different issue.
I would simply like to see better agreement within the group as to
how high we are aiming:
How wide we are casting our net so as not to miss a good idea,
how much time should be spent to get us all thoroughly up-to-speed,
how much work we will do to avoid a fundamental flaw in our
product/standard.
That is, I'd like folks at each end of the spectrum implied above
to move toward the center, so as to improve our focus in this regard
(and thereby probably decrease our volume).
> interests to have their status quo granted world-wide domination,
> without, of course, their having to do any unnecessary "work".
>
> But maybe I go that wrong from the start.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤