P&P: RE: 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,

Thank you for the support.

Yes. The heart of the proposal is the quality improvement
approach implemented through an issue resolution process.
The rest is fitting that into the IEEE's way of doing
business.


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: 20 December 2003 12:34
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; suo-policies@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: RE: RE: Re: SUO: Motion to Adopt Standard Upper Ontology
> Working Group Development Guidelines, Version 1.0 D5
> 
> 
> Dear Matthew,
> 
> Thanks very much for your responses.
> 
> I'm now in concurrence with the document that you propose, 
> and agree that it
> will provide some valuable structure and process in our 
> attempt to develop a
> standard.
> 
> Just to recap, my understanding is that you have described the kind of
> process used successfully in other standards development 
> activities. This
> will apply a known, workable methodology in the context of SUO.
> 
> Phil Jackson
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-suo-policies@majordomo.ieee.org
> > [mailto:owner-suo-policies@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of 
> West, Matthew
> > R SITI-ITPSIE
> > Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 5:28 AM
> > To: suo-policies@ieee.org
> > Subject: P&P: RE: RE: Re: SUO: Motion to Adopt Standard 
> Upper Ontology
> > Working Group Development Guidelines, Version 1.0 D5
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>