RE: SUO: An idea for making progress
Jim et al
See JPF> below for comments.
regards
Julian
-----Original Message-----
From: jim.s3@juno.com [mailto:jim.s3@juno.com]
Sent: 2003-06-27 04:52
To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: Fw: SUO: An idea for making progress
All,
Allow me to clarify. Standards documents typcially make progress
by starting with one or more documents, calling for comments, resolving
those comments, and repeating this process until any many participants as
possible are happy with the product.
JPF> I can only speak from experience in ISO/IEC standardization activities. In these areas, the development of a standard typically starts from *one* document (either as the result of a standards committee's own development work, or prior development as a national standard, industry specification, etc.). In the case of SUO, we have several documents identified as "starter documents" (SUMO, OpenCyc, IFF) - are you proposing commenting/voting on these *individually* (i.e., as a competition to see which of these emerges as *the* IEEE standard? Otherwise, I believe that voting would be entirely inappropriate - each of these documents (as well as EPISTLE, DOLCE, etc.) have valuable contributions towards the definition of an SUO, but the task for this group is to take these inputs and create a series of "working draft" documents that can be subject to detailed review, criticism, and improvement. I don't see what the benefit would be in raising these documents *individually* !
to 'working draft' status. By analogy to the ISO process, the *first* stage at which voting is appropriate is to determine whether *one* mature working draft of the standard represents the consensus of the techical experts represented within this group. Unless that consensus exists, voting on technical content is likely to result in premature choices being made between technical alternatives.
I never meant to suggest current comments were not serious. I
meant to say we need to get as many members as possible to do a
comprehensive review of each of the documents and submit focused comments
on the documents. We could call for such comments, but I believe we'll
get more members to spend more time if this was put to a vote. Let me be
clear, the vote is not the end, it is a means to encouraging greater
input. Members could say they are voting NO, but would consider voting
YES if certain changes were made. This is how documents are refined and
consensus is built.
JPF> I disgree with your last point: consensus is not reached by voting - rather, voting can be used to determine whether consensus has been reached through discussion, review, and improvement of technical content.
JPF> I don't understand what a "YES" or "NO" vote would mean in this case. I can review each technical contribution to the group's final deliverable and identify those portions of it that should either be included in the SUO, used as the basis for developing the SUO, or has no place within the SUO. My expectation, though, is that such analysis will be undertaken at a relatively micro-level, and that *every* technical contribution that is on the table now has significant value. The key is to identify those portions of each that have this value, rather than get into a "beauty contest" based on YES/NO voting on the documents as a whole.
In a standards group, most voting members probably feel some
degree of professional obligation to respond to formal actions of the
group. An open discussion, as we have going now, solicites focused
input from only a few members. A formal call for comments will engage
more members. A vote will engage even more members.
JPF> This can be accomplished by formalizing the process by which both initial technical contributions ("starter documents") and subsequent "working drafts" are circulated for comment. I will make a proposal for how this could be done in response to Bob Spiller's draft motion on the topic of "starter documents".
JPF> I do, by the way, recognize the reality that a vote may attract more attention than a call for comments: I've seen this happen in ISO committees both in the lack of response to "Committee Draft for Comment" documents, and in the fact that some national standards bodies only organize substantive reviews at the Draft International Standard level.
Jim
===================================
All,
Here's an idea for how to make some progress on each of the three
doucment. Call for comments on each of the documents in the form of a
vote on whether to raise each document to 'Working Draft' status. The
objective of the vote would not be to collect enough YES votes, but
rather to collect serious comments on what members want to see
incorporated in the document before willing to YES in follow-on vote.
It is true that comments could be solicited without a formal
vote, but I believe having the vote will encourage more members to submit
serious comments.
Jim Schoening
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!