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

["Philip Jackson" <phil.jackson@computer.org>]

Dear Matthew,

Thanks for your responses.

> > PJ:
> > 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.

I think it would be helpful for the document to state this -- otherwise
people may later think that votes for the Deliverable Proposal are in fact
votes for something to be adopted and recommended as a SUO standard. My
understanding is that this is not what you intend(?) -- since this is a
process that will help us get from A to B, it is helpful to show how the
process interfaces with the SUO A (starter document) and B (approved
standard) end points.

It would also help to clarify which groups vote at which stages on versions
of a deliverable. If I read the document correctly it says that at each
stage of the process votes are taken by the entire SUO Working Group. There
do not seem to be votes only within the Work Programme team to resolve
issues or develop versions before they are brought to votes by the entire
SUO Working Group.(?) It would seem that more limited votes could be helpful
at earlier stages, and that the entire SUO Working Group may not be a good
forum for votes on early stages. On the other hand, it's not clear whether
the Work Programme teams will be large enough to merit having votes within
them...

> 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).

Agreed.

Phil Jackson