|(Moved from ontology-summit)|
December 15, 2010 10:35:44 AM MST
This just isn't relevant. Matthew provided a simple counterexample to your assertion that "quality is binary": a case where there are five (equally severe) bugs in a program and four are fixed is obviously an improvement in quality short of perfection. Case closed; quality isn't binary (unless you mean something idiosyncratic by "quality"). Your pointing out that you can modify the conditions of his example in such a way that it is no longer a counterexample is irrelevant. Suppose you claim that all the balls in the bin are red or green. If Matthew reaches in and pulls out a blue one, it is no defense of your claim to reach in and pull out a red or green one.
I have reviewed Matthew's original post and do not find "(equally severe)" anywhere. So I will let Matthew speak for himself and point out to you that "severe" is a Highly Ambiguous term (or will ambiguous suffice?)
Also, pls be aware that "quality is binary" is not my assertion. It is a report about what's going on in the real world.
If you choose to present your view of quality in a case for use by the Ontology Summit with business people then don't be surprised if the audience reaction is 'just another software weenie.'
This is not about my view vs. yours.
This is about the prudence of understanding your audience before trying to impress them with the worth of ontologies.
My claim is that the majority of business people smart enough to appreciate ontologies are already well versed about quality, six sigma, and lean so you better adopt their ontology.
Fortunately, you don't have to believe me. Ask the Conference Board. Look at the syllabi of the Corporate University tribe (whose budgets exceed the budgets of all Ivy League colleges combined), etc.. Ask the business process people who are taking millions of dollars from businesses just to help them formulate dumb taxonomies.