P&P: RE: 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 comments 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: 19 December 2003 12:29
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; suo-policies@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: RE: Re: SUO: Motion to Adopt Standard Upper Ontology
> Working Group Development Guidelines, Version 1.0 D5
> 
> 
> 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 -- 

MW: I have added something to try to ensure this is clear.

> 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. 

MW: We can only propose, it is the IEEE SA who dispose and call
the vote for a standard - that is all in the IEEE procedures
which I am sure you are familiar with.

> 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.

MW: Yes, I have added a note to indicate that starter documents
are the same as "initial material" and that when the intent is that
the deliverable should be a standard that exiting the process
means it is fit to send to the IEEE SA.
> 
> 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. 

MW: Correct.

> 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.(?) 

MW: I am simply not trying to prescribe how project teams
organise themselves. My experience of working in standards
development is that project teams are small (3-5 seems to
work well) votes within project teams are rare, and we don't
need to tell a group that small how to organise themselves.

> 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. 

MW: There is nothing to prevent this. RRO specifically permits
it. Such votes would simply be in addition to this process.

> 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.

MW: Some of your comments suggest that things are "forbidden
unless they are allowed". The reality is that they are "allowed
unless they are forbidden".
> 
> Phil Jackson
> 
> 
>