Dear Leo (01)
Thanks for your in depth comment. (02)
Let me just reiterate that I am not a subscriber to this list
Yes I agree cross posting may not be a good n general but if a
discussion belongs to both lists then cross posting is the appropriate
thing to do, as I believe it was the case on this occasion (03)
Also, because I am not a subscriber, my posts here are moderated that
means that if something is not compliant to posting rules it will not be
approved, full stop. (please approve this one though!) (04)
A diuscussion list can have operational goals, and goals may benefit
from relevant and adequate discussions.
The two are not mutually exclusive, by any means. You are not a
bastars, but your world seems very black and white - surely for a reason (05)
Considering adding a new semiotic layer to ontological constructs may,
or may not, be critical to knowledge domains, including to the work and
the goals of this list.
That is what my question was about. Simply ignoring a question is
generally enough for a thread to fade. (06)
Should however this (totally speculative) hypothesis be true, then a
lot of the work being done on this list and on many other lists, would
be partially
obsolete, and not only GOALS need revising, but perhaps also some
axioms. I can see how change can be considered a threat to a non agile
organisation. (07)
What you perceive as 'risk of failure' can be just evolution, things do
not necessarily fail, they just cease to fulfil a purpose and transform
into something else
Not necessarily a bad thing, especially if that original purpose no
longer reason to be pursued. (08)
As a project manager I share your sense of responsibility to get things
done within a given boundary, so apols if this semiotic question has
diverted your attention
where it is not likely to be productinve for the moment, I ll make sure
I ll conform to the charter, and next time I post to thiis group it
will be an articulate piece of thinking rather than just an 'intution; (09)
Keep me posted if something new in your conceptual framework in the
future, I think there might be some work to be done there (010)
Cheers (011)
PDM (012)
>
>
>PDM,
>
>Your comment:
>"Broader perspectives, a higher understanding of the top level issues,
>increased commnication flow and general improved sense of orientation
>are likely to help any list ACHIEVE any GOAL better and faster."
>
>Unfortunately I no longer believe so. I think there are discussion
>lists and there are working lists, which also have discussions. The
>difference is that the latter focus their discussions on goals to be
>achieved. There are also open and closed lists, depending on the
>rationale for the list.
>
>In fact, I think open-ended philosophizing doomed the IEEE SUO list and
>led to a failure to achieve its goals. The list eventually was seen as
>being only a forum for endless disputation by armchair philosphers, and
>those with much time on their hands. The real work was done offline by
>smaller groups.
>
>I think there is definitely a need for discussion groups, but I think
>there is also a need for working groups. Education, consensus building,
>broader perspectives are important, but not necessarily if you want to
>achieve specific goals. A given group has to define what it is and what
>its goals are (if any), and its members either have to discipline
>themselves to try to achieve those goals or a top-down structured
>methodology must be employed (as for example, ISO, W3C, OMG, etc.,
>standards groups have done).
>
>Confusing the type of group you are is bad. Look at some of the
>arguments made recently about the impossibility of a common standard
>upper ontology: they cite the failure of the IEEE SUO distribution list
>to come to agreement. This is a fallacious, self-fulfilling argument,
>to me, because endless argumentation dooms real achievement, i.e., we
>didn't achieve what we wanted to because we argued incessantly and
>therefore what we wanted to achieve is not achievable. It will doom
>ONTAC too unless ONTAC is supposed to be just a discussion list. In
>which case we can argue endlessly and newer members will raise the same
>old issues again and again, without real resolution. Because there are
>always newer, mis-, dis-, or un-informed members who will often have
>strong opinions inversely proportional to their knowledge.
>
>I know I will seem to be an arrogant, elitist bastard who is trying to
>squelch creativity, but I have seen too many lists fail. People who can
>contribute the most drop off because of the high noise, and the list
>flounders, reducing to argumentation among the latest members with too
>much time and too little knowledge.
>
>If ONTAC is just a discussion list and has no additional goals, then I
>will gladly drop out. As will others. I don't think that is the case,
>hence invited Pat's response.
>
>By the way, profligate cross-posting to other distribution lists is
>also typically not very productive.
>
>Thanks,
>Leo
>
>_____________________________________________
>Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation, Information Semantics
>lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Center for Innovative Computing & Informatics
>Voice: 703-983-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305
>Fax: 703-983-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
>
>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> (013)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (014)
|