RE: A NEW FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FORMAL MOTION: was RE: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
Dear Eric,
See reponses 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
<snip>
> > > > 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 ;^)
MW: This was an eliptical reference to Winston Churchill's statement
"democracy is the worst possible for of government ... apart
from all the others."
MW: My take would read in full "Standards committees are the worst
possible bodies for creating a large and complex standard ...
apart from all the others."
>
> >
> > > 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?
MW:1. Integration of Lifecycle data for process plant including oil and
gas production facilities. It is a data model and reference data that
should collectively be described as an ontology that was light on
axioms.
MW: 2. Intergation of Industrial Data for Exchange Access and Sharing.
An architecture and methodology for integration of data models or
ontologies in general.
> Were the topics controversial?
MW: 1. Only as controversial as things like whether to use a 3D or 4D
approach ...
MW: 2. Well when your trying to explain that people are doing things
all wrong ...
> Were the topics complex?
MW: 1. Life the universe and everything (taken a bit at a time).
MW: 2. Complicated rather than 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?
MW: Standards can do a number of things. Many certainly do standardise
practice in the procedure sense. But this is not the only sort. Standards
can be specifications for products, or just statements of facts. Of course
I think conforming to a standard usually involves some activity.
How many years were your draft standards used and proven before
declaring them to be standards?
MW: In practice it is a multistage process, where you declare a "standard"
and then people examine it and perhaps do trial implementations, raise
issues, you respond and produce a new version, and after a few cycles,
(and many years) with persistence out comes a standard, which people
then implement (if they find it useful). People quite often implement
draft standards, but it has to be on the basis that it is the best thing
available, and at least better than a blank piece of paper.
MW: The time taken for all this has been about 7-8 years. We could have
done something bad and useless quicker, but not something better quicker.
Who was the sponsoring standards organization?
MW: ISO
If I should have more optimism about what a standards committee can
create based on hearing about your experiences, please help me see it.
MW: Standards are like most things, they can be good or bad. My experience
is that if you operate the standardisation process diligently, trying to
achieve consensus, trying to understand divergent opinions from your own,
Taking issues raised against drafts seriously, rather than treating them
as a nuisance, then you do make progress, and achieve more than you would
expect.
MW: I would not describe the process as fast. Just as fast as it is possible
to make progress.
And if such a creation should be allowed to be called a standard is yet
another question.
MW: If you have developed a deliverable in an open international forum,
where many of the worlds leading experts have had chance to comment on and
help develop the standard, and you have operated the standardisation process
diligently, you have earnt the right to call the product a standard.
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.
MW: The whole point is that in an open process you can't throw people out.
You have to listen to the criticism and try to take it on board.
You have to be patient. One of my little aphorisms is "When two people are
arguing strongly with each other, the secret is to find out why they are
both right".
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.
MW: That sounds like a reasonable estimate to me. What I am sure of is that
there isn't a faster way to get to a standard (small s) but there are plenty
of ways to get to yet another pet ontology with a few adherents.
FWIW,
-Eric
<snip>