Dear Jack Ring,
I know more well-accepted quality theories but it can be improved.
At present, the new international movement on services, establishes
levels of quality of service. Actually top gurus have been misunderstood
with such a binary scale: a quality vs a non-quality product (just
consider the acceptance rules for batch products, the tolerance range (1
pp milliar
in past times vs 1 pp million in present times, etc). At present quality
concepto (as complex one) contains objective and subjective attributes,
and levels are normal scales. Of course, some reality things can have a
binary attribute. Well, just other ideas, Manuel Mora (01)
Jack Ring wrote:
> Manuel,
> Let's be clear that the issue concerns the quality of something. An
> ontology containing an occurrence may use a binary representation while
> representing a continuance or persistence is not. However the issue is
> not about how things are represented by the ontology the issue is about
> the utility of the ontology. One aspect of reality that is binary
> according to W. Edwards Deming, Phil Crosby, Juran, et al. is the
> attribute of quality of a thing. Others like high quality. It may be that
> they speak of highly pregnant as well. So be it. Jack
>
>
> On Dec 15, 2010, at 5:25 PM, Manuel Mora T. wrote:
>
>
>> Dear colleagues,
>> Ontologies is related with Philosophy issues (so part of my real
>> interest) and Philosophy is about reality (how is structured, how is
>> knowledgeable, and how is tranformed)). Reality is not binary and any
>> included concept is also not binary. Of course, any observer can define
>> a binary measurement system, but a continuous ones is better. Philosophy
>> is also on spiritual issues, in such cases, the scales are binary! -->
>> goodness or oppositive (of course with different extent of positive or
>> negative impacts on the system). Well, just a contribution for it, Manuel
>> Mora
>>
>>
>>
>> Jack Ring wrote:
>>
>>> One more try.
>>> Tell us, is YOUR "perfection" binary?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 15, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Christopher Menzel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Dec 15, 2010, at 3:18 PM, Jack Ring wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> (Moved from ontology-summit)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>> December 15, 2010 10:35:44 AM MST
>>>>> Wrote ---
>>>>> 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. ++++++++++++ Christopher,
>>>>> 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?)
>>>>
>>>> You're still missing the point. True, Matthew did not expressly
>>>> say "equally severe", but he was obviously purporting to give you a
>>>> counterexample to "quality is binary", so it is incumbent upon us as
>>>> charitable readers to interpret his words so as to make the best
>>>> sense of them in the context. But look, let's suppose (what is
>>>> wildly untrue) that Matthew is so thick that he wouldn't have
>>>> realized that in order for the scenario he proffered to serve as a
>>>> counterexample, the program bugs would have to be roughly equal in
>>>> severity (and of sufficient severity to impede the program's
>>>> intended function). It is STILL the case that the tidied up version
>>>> that I provided IS a counterexample and THAT — namely, that
>>>> counterexamples to "quality is binary" exist — was the point. To
>>>> alter the analogy: Suppose you claim that all the balls in the bin
>>>> are red or green. And suppose Matthew, poor color-blind fellow,
>>>> reaches in and grabs what he thinks is a blue ball when in fact it
>>>> is green. But then suppose I reach in and pull out an actual blue
>>>> ball. It is no defense of your claim that "ball-in-the-bin-colors
>>>> are binary" to point out Matthew's error.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> People give false/misleading/confused/incoherent reports of what's
>>>> going on in "the real world" all the time. So what? We've simply
>>>> stumbled into another one.
>>>>
>>>>> 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.'
>>>>
>>>> Ah, the trusty ad hominem. Last resort of the man bereft of
>>>> arguments.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chris Menzel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>>>> Config Subscr:
>>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>>>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>>>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>>>> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>>>> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>>> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>>> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>>> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Manuel Mora, EngD.
>> Full Professor and Researcher "C" Level
>> Autonomous University of Aguascalientes
>> Ave. Universidad 940
>> Aguascalientes, Ags.
>> México 20100
>> www.uaa.mx ----------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
> (02)
--
----------------------------------------------
Manuel Mora, EngD.
Full Professor and Researcher "C" Level
Autonomous University of Aguascalientes
Ave. Universidad 940
Aguascalientes, Ags.
México 20100
www.uaa.mx
---------------------------------------------- (03)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (04)
|