Re: P&P: FW: Proposed Revisions to Website

["Julian Fowler" <jfowler@pdtsolutions.co.uk>]

Matthew et al

See responses under your numbered issues.

regards
Julian

On 2003-12-30 at 14:07, you wrote:

> 
> Reposting after 18 hours.
> 
> 
> 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: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE 
> Sent: 29 December 2003 21:28
> To: Suo-Policies (E-mail)
> Subject: Proposed Revisions to Website
> 
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> I recently posted what I considered to be relatively mild
> changes to the SUO website only to find that they were
> apparantly controversial.
> 
> The first relates to SUMO. My understanding from the archives
> was that SUMO failed its last independent ballot, and had
> its status as a "starter" document from its involvement in
> the "Lattice of Theories" motion, as indeed did OpenCYC.
> Jim's memory is otherwise, and he certainly declared the
> motion as passed.
> 
> There are a number of issues that come result from this.
> 
> 1. We need to make a clear statement of how votes are 
> counted. It matters much less that they are voted one way 
> or another, than that you know which way. As I understand
> it, this is not something we can choose, only understand.

Agreed 100% -- I thought that this had been captured by Jim prior to 
consideration of the motion(s) dealing with the Lattice Of Theories 
proposal.

> 2. I think we need to get past some of the history around
> starter documents. To do this we need to focus around what
> there is clear consensus on, which is the Lattice of Theories
> proposal. This has been deliberately inclusive, and all
> the important contributions we have are either part of it
> or relate to it. In particular I think we need to loose the
> term "starter document" which is at best misleading, and at
> worst has caused considerable contention. I would suggest
> a term like "contribution" or "component" or "subporject" 
> as a way to refer to all the individual efforts that have 
> been referred to in a successful ballot.

You've hit the proverbial nail on the head here -- I suspect that to 
many of those who follow the SUO activity on a passive and/or part 
time basis it is not at all clear what the current status of the 
various "starter documents" is, or indeed what their relationship is 
to the goal of the SUO activity.  I believe that I suggested some 
months ago that the process of this group ( as it might appear to an 
outside observer) assumes that different individuals and groups will 
continue to work until a magical point is reached at which one of 
these independently developed "starter documents" will suddenly 
become The Answer, and all oppostion and development of rival 
specifications will melt away ...

For progress to be made, statements need to be made as to how the 
various "starter documents" contribute to the goal of an IEEE 
Standard Upper Ontology, how they relate to each other, and what 
process(es) are to be followed to merge those contributions (where 
"merge" may involve consensus as to continued co-existence with an 
understanding of differences and overlaps).

> 3. I think we should have a page that records our resolutions,
> i.e. motions that have passed their vote. Then we have a clear
> record of what we have agreed to. It is supprisingly hard
> to find previous motions in the archive, not least because
> we have used inconsistent language in them (and why
> wouldn't we?)

Agreed.  As time goes by there is always the possibility of continued 
argument as to what was meant by the wording of a particular 
resolution; however, it should be a given that everyone involved in 
this activity should have immediate access to an historical record of 
the group's formal decisions.

> As separate issues I think we should:
> 
> 1. provide clearer guidance on how to use MajorDomo - we get
> regular pleas to the list asking how to unsubscribe.
> 
> 2. Provide links to the relevant IEEE SA documents that
> govern our actions, and our policy in interpreting them
> (e.g. becoming a voting member etc.)
> 
> 3. Provide an extension to the expert contributions concept
> by providing a members area where members may publish their
> own pages - rather than putting the material through the
> exploders.

Agreed on all three (although in the first case we should assume that 
those who will have most difficulty (un)subscribing to/from the list 
will be those least likely to read the instructions on how to do so).

> Your comments would be appreciated.
> 
> 
> 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
> 


-- 
Julian Fowler, PDT Solutions
Telephone: +44 15242 63389 Mobile: +44 7764 770511
Fax: +44 870 052 3414 Email: jfowler@pdtsolutions.co.uk
http://www.pdtsolutions.co.uk