SUO: Re: Focus and Volume
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Frederick N. Chase wrote:
>
> 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:
> > > >
> > > > 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).
> > >
> > > > 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.
I guess that I had just never even considered the possibility
that people would try to establish a standard without a basis
in research, either garnered from all available sources that
might bear on the design decisions at issue or carried out
ad hoc in a working collaboration. It may take me a while
to absorb this bit of news.
> > 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 particular, 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?
No.
> 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.
Yes, I have sat on the sorts of database spec committees that
spend six months trying to decide the optimal field width for
the number of characters in people's last names, only to have
it all thrown out when the school moves to admit an increased
percentage of international students, but I did have my hopes
that this group was not going to be that kind of a committee.
> > 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 got that wrong from the start.
> >
> > Jon Awbrey
> >
> > ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
I hope that you get more input on this, as I am beginning to entertain
the the not-so-entertaining possibility that I have had an inaccurate
model of this process all along. I had been imagining that people
would be looking toward new modes and models of collaborative work,
y'know, 'cause o' this new-fangled web'n'all, but there is indeed
a whole lot of precedent for each new medium to serve as little
more than a new bottle for the same old swill, so I guess that
I should not be so naive about the realistic possibilities.
What trapped me in this Ontology Loop in the first place,
which, if you knew my history, you would know is just about
the last circle of ideas in which I ever expected to get stuck,
was the pieces that I read early on about multiple perspectives
and ontological relativity, which made me say to myself: Golly,
maybe these ontological types have finally managed to shake off
their dogmatic slumbers and are starting to branch out beyond the
monolithic, ontological, totalitarian hierarchy exhausting reality
on which I once knew them to be so fixated. But I do not hear much
of that kind of stuff any more, so maybe it was all a lot of smoke
and mirrors.
'Nuff Said, Leastwise For My Sake,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤