Matthew,
Who is responsible for the content on the SUO web
site?
MW: I edit
the website under the direction of the Chair.
How would one object to a
particular item prior to its posting?
MW: The usual
practice has been that for major changes a draft has been posted separate from
the website so that people can comment. Comments are processed, and then
the site made part of the main site. Minor amendments are just made and
notified.
After it is
posted?
MW: Not sure. I
guess you would raise the issue with the Chair, but your problem is that it is
a matter over which you disagree with the Chair. You could certainly raise a
motion instructing hte Chair to do something, but that seems a little heavy
handed.
Will you ask for unanimous
consent to post items to the site?
MW: There was a
period when comments were asked for. I do not recall any once the Chair had
approved the draft around Christmas.
If this were done on an item
basis, I think all would be approved except the motions item.
MW: I think you
need to object to the Chair about the
inaccurracy.
If unanimous consent is required to
post to the site, or an objection would be cause for removal, then I have no
objection to the procedures document. The problem is that the procedures
document canonizes the current content of the web site.
I do appreciate all of the work you put into producing the procedures
document and I support its content. How can we work around
this?
MW: I think we
have covered this in a later
e-mail.
Bob
West,
Matthew R SITI-ITABEI wrote:
Dear
Bob,
It seems to
me that your argument is not with the document, but that it has not been
properly implemented, which if you did not raise an objection you might have
a case for, since it would then have passed. At the moment of course it has
not passed, so there is no reason for anything to conform to
it.
Matthew West
Streamline Business Information Architect
for Supply Chain Management
Shell Information Technology International
Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20
7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet:
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
Matthew,
Thank you
for the information.
In the document to which you
refer http://suo.ieee.org/SUO/SUO-Procedures/Documents/SUO-Development-GuidelinesV1Final.txt
at :
5.1 Stage 1 –Approval
...
If the motion is passed the work becomes authorised by the
Standard Upper Ontology Working Group.
Note: The motions for existing starter documents are
considered here to be Approval motions.
The Standard Upper Ontology Working Group Chair shall
maintain a publicly available and numbered list of motions
that pass as resolutions of the Standard Upper Ontology
Working Group.
I interpret this to mean that the list of
documents on the SUO web site http://suo.ieee.org/SUO/SUO-Procedures/documents.html
under
the heading Resolutions ( http://suo.ieee.org/SUO/resolutions.html ) are the "list of motions that pass as
resolutions of the Standard Upper OntologyWorking Group" mentioned
above. If so, then I do object.
The text quoted above links
these documents and categorizes the June 2003 SUMO motion a passed and
approved motion. It failed. If I am misinterpreting your
meaning, please advise me how.
One way to handle this is to simply
not list the SUMO motion as approved or alternatively note in the listing
that the result of the vote is in dispute and the motion's final status
will be posted when the dispute is
resolved.
Bob
Bob
West, Matthew R
SITI-ITABEI wrote:
Dear
Bob,
I
understand your objection to that, but that is not what is being asked
here.
It is
perhaps a littel confusing that Jim give the link to the page on which
the procedures
documents
can be found rather than the document itself. The document can be found
at
for a
text version or:
for a pdf
version.
SUMO is
not mentioned in either of them.
Matthew West
Streamline Business Information
Architect for Supply Chain Management
Shell Information Technology
International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United
Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email:
matthew.west@shell.com
Internet:
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
Mathew,
I object to the inclusion of
the June 2003 SUMO motion (Motion #2 on the referenced site) as an
adopted motion. The motion failed.
An acceptable
change would be to remove this motion from the list of adopted
motions. As you know, I am pursuing this matter through the IEEE
channels. These processes move
slowly.
Bob
West, Matthew R SITI-ITABEI
wrote:
Dear Bob,
Could you indicate please what changes I would need to make to the document to overcome
your objection?
Matthew West
Streamline Business Information Architect for Supply Chain Management
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Spillers [mailto:skydog@PACBELL.NET]
Sent: 25 May 2004 16:48
To: jim.s3@JUNO.COM; SUO
Subject: SUO: Final Procedures Documents
Jim,
You wrote:
I don't see where you are refering to. What URL is it at?
I am referring to the document
http://suo.ieee.org/SUO/SUO-Procedures/documents.html
which is the document you referenced in your email of 05/23/04, which
asked:
Are there any objections to this version of the
referenced procedures document.
Yes, I object.
Bob