P&P: RE: Re: SUO: Motion to Adopt Standard Upper Ontology Working Group Development Guidelines, Version 1.0 D5

["West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <matthew.west@shell.com>]

Dear Phil,

See responses below.


Matthew West
Principal Consultant
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: Philip Jackson [mailto:phil.jackson@computer.org]
> Sent: 18 December 2003 12:31
> To: jim.s3@juno.com; West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; 
> suo-policies@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: Re: SUO: Motion to Adopt Standard Upper Ontology Working
> Group Development Guidelines, Version 1.0 D5
> 
> 
> Matthew,
> 
> I've scanned over the latest version and have the following 
> questions /
> comments:
> 
> 1) Overall, the document is very clear and reasonable.

MW: I'll take that as concurrence then.
> 
> 2) It may be helpful to define how a "majority" is counted 
> for each of the
> votes mentioned in the document. I don't know if this means yes > no +
> abstain, or just yes > no ... It's not clear to me if all 
> votes need to be
> bound by the yes > no + abstain definition...?

MW: The intention is to use the ordinary process for motions, and 
I think that is at least implied in the document. The counting
would be dependent then on whatever rules are in force for that
process (which I am trying not to touch).

MW: I will add a sentence to make that clear. (Done)
> 
> 3) It may be helpful to add a sentence or two spelling out 
> which phases may
> include iteration and multiple votes before progressing to 
> the next phase...

MW: I would have thought that was rather obvious. If you do 
not pass the vote you iterate (or give up). Before formal
voting it is at the discretion of the PL how many times he
iterates, and it is at his discretion that he calls a vote
(as I have just done for this document).

MW: Still I will look and see if I can make this more explicit.
(done).
> 
> 4) It may be helpful to provide some discussion that maps 
> this document to
> the main working products and ultimate deliverables that will 
> be produced by
> SUO, i.e. standard ontology efforts. How do "starter 
> documents" map to this
> process? 

MW: My interpretation is that starter documents are Initial 
Material and the Starter Document motion really identifies
a Work Programme. That is certainly what has happened in
practice.

MW: (Note added to this effect)

> How would a starter document for an ontology progress to a
> "standard upper ontology" that satisfies the PAR and is 
> recognized as an
> upper ontology that has been adopted and recommended as a 
> standard by the
> SUO voting members? 

MW: When a motion has been passed that proposes that a certain
deliverable should be accorded that status. As yet I do not
think we have anything that would be likely to pass such a
motion. On the other hand I see several strands that once
drawn together might result in material that would pass such
a motion (given several years work).

MW: Addressing this is outside the scope of this document,
and is to do with the Work Programmes we choose to approve.

> Does the process permit multiple standard upper
> ontologies to be proposed by SUO as alternative standards, or 
> just one?

MW: It is agnostic. It is just a way of getting anything done
the SUO WG agrees to be part of its overall work programme.
Again outside the scope fo this document.

> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-suo-policies@majordomo.ieee.org
> > [mailto:owner-suo-policies@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> > jim.s3@juno.com
> > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 6:48 AM
> > To: matthew.west@shell.com; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org;
> > suo-policies@ieee.org
> > Subject: P&P: Re: SUO: Motion to Adopt Standard Upper 
> Ontology Working
> > Group Development Guidelines, Version 1.0 D5
> >
> >
> >
> > Matthew and SUO P&P Group,
> >
> >         This policy needs more attention in the SUO P&P Group.  I'm
> > guessing the lack of objections are from a lack of 
> attention rather than
> > concurrence.  Please take another look and see if you can 
> get at least a
> > few people to concur rather than not object.
> >
> > Jim Schoening
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:16:44 -0000 "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE"
> > <matthew.west@shell.com> writes:
> > >
> > > Dear Colleagues,
> > >
> > > A week has now passed since I posted the above document, which
> > > can be found at the URL below.
> > >
> > > http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/SUO-Procedures/documents.html
> > >
> > > I have received no comments on the document since that time
> > > either on list or off list. I am therefore proposing a motion
> > > to adopt them, as outlined in the process step 6 as described
> > > here:
> > >
> > > http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/SUO-Procedures/index.html
> > >
> > > I therefore propose the following motion:
> > >
> > > The Standard Upper Ontology Working Group resolves to adopt
> > > "The Standard Upper Ontology Working Group Development
> > > Guidelines, Version 1.0, Draft 5" found at:
> > >
> > >
> > 
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/SUO-Procedures/Documents/SUO-De
velopment-G
> uidelines-V1D5.pdf
> >
> > as its process for developing draft standards and other
> > deliverables from approved Work Programmes.
> >
> >
> > Matthew West
> > Principal Consultant
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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!
>
>