RE: A NEW FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FORMAL MOTION: was RE: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
Thanks for your reply. Please see below:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE [mailto:matthew.west@shell.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 4:19 AM
> To: Eric Peterson; John F. Sowa; Mike Pool; apease@ks.teknowledge.com;
> clegg@cyc.com; John DeOliveira
> Cc: Patrick Cassidy; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: A NEW FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FORMAL MOTION: was RE: SUO:
Re:
> SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
>
> Dear Eric,
>
> See below.
>
>
> 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: Eric Peterson [mailto:epeterson@CCAAVA.com]
> > Sent: 06 June 2003 19:29
> > To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; John F. Sowa; Mike Pool;
> > apease@ks.teknowledge.com; clegg@cyc.com; John DeOliveira
> > Cc: Patrick Cassidy; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Subject: A NEW FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FORMAL MOTION: was RE: SUO:
Re:
> > SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
> >
> >
> > Please see below:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE [mailto:matthew.west@shell.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 5:33 AM
> > > To: Eric Peterson; John F. Sowa; Mike Pool;
> > apease@ks.teknowledge.com;
> > > clegg@cyc.com; John DeOliveira
> > > Cc: Patrick Cassidy; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > Subject: RE: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
> > >
> > > Dear Eric,
> > >
> > > Perhaps I am just a pragmatist, and will settle for what can be
> > > done rather than go for what I know cannot be done.
> > >
> > > What cannot be done (today or in the next 5 years) is to create
> > > a single canonical ontology that will gain universal, or even
> > > very widespread acceptance.
> >
> > [ELP] Right. I don't think that the most optimistic of us would
think
> > anything of the sort.
> >
> > Given that, and given my increasing concern about our present
> > direction
> > and progress, I formally move that:
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > __________
> > ____
> > WHEREAS, committees are very special purpose organizations
> > and by their
> > nature are good at only certain sorts of tasks, and
> >
> > WHEREAS, a standards committee is about the most ill suited body
>
> MW: Apart from all the others (if consensus is your objective).
[ELP] I'm sorry, I don't understand you comment. My addled mind
requires full sentences and painfully obvious pronoun reference ;^)
>
> > imaginable for crafting/engineering or perhaps even merging
components
> > into a large and complex standard (such as an SUO), and
> >
> > WHEREAS, only unified hierarchical bodies such as companies
> > are known to
> > craft/engineer large technical results of quality, and
>
> MW: Well I've worked in standards organisations that managed this.
[ELP] Please tell us more:
What were the standards?
Were the topics controversial?
Were the topics complex?
I'm sure I'll have more questions after your initial response.
> >
> > WHEREAS, standards veterans are observed to agree that
standardization
> > can not happen without a de facto standard, and
>
> MW: I am a standards veteran, and it is not true that a de facto
> Standard is required before it can be blessed.
[ELP] "Standardization" ("http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary";) is not
creation. "Standardization" is a transitive verb and therefore requires
something to be standardized. Wouldn't we agree that the thing to be
standardized is "practice" - that we are specifying a standard practice?
How many years were your draft standards used and proven before
declaring them to be standards?
Who was the sponsoring standards organization?
If I should have more optimism about what a standards committee can
create based on hearing about your experiences, please help me see it.
And if such a creation should be allowed to be called a standard is yet
another question.
Even if this group could or should toss out those members that don't
really believe in a single SUO, the relatively unified remaining group
members (including myself) would not be able to let go of their pet
content. The content merging process would be a battle at every
pair/group of competing axioms.
Even if I could will us into unity, and we could garner the spare time,
it would take five years of merging and creation, and another five to
see it used and proven.
FWIW,
-Eric
<snip>