I agree with Matthew re management planning. The
idea of a plan drawing (a la architects) is SO
DIFFERENT in meaning as to be only lexically
similar, as in the previously mentioned WordNet
entries for set, put and get. There is no
similarity in meaning, and no commonality, between
an engineering/architecture plan drawing and a
project plan (actions from Before state to After
state; resources and goals to be represented in
FOL; see IDEF0 diagrams as representations of plan
activities leading to specific action bindings for
each activity). (01)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (02)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Matthew West
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 2:55 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE:
Whymost classifications are fuzzy) (03)
Dear Cory, (04)
The intended future state is the objective. How
you get there is the plan.
Plan as a word may have many meanings, but in the
context of business
planning it is really quite accepted what it
means, and no one who does
project management confuses an objective with the
plan to bring it about
(there might for example be more than one plan to
bring about the same
objective - so plan and objective cannot be the
same thing.) (05)
Regards (06)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (07)
This email originates from Information Junction
Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way,
Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (08)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cory
Casanave
> Sent: 03 August 2011 22:42
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was
RE: Why most classifications
are
> fuzzy)
>
> Mathew,
> We also do planning as part of or EA practice
and also do a reasonable
about
> of project management. I recognize the way you
are using the term as the
level
> of planning required to get CxO "sign off" for
an enterprise plan as you
> suggest. However, this does not preclude the
possibility of other plans
that
> may not be as complete. Plans for sign-off must
also include other
> viewpoints, such as finances. But, not all
plans need a CxO signoff for
> financial commitment.
>
> Certainly there is a concept for a plan as you
suggest, perhaps I would
call
> it an "action plan". There is also a concept
for the more general notion
of
> plan as John suggests that may or may not
include specific actions or
other
> viewpoints. What seems essential to a plan is
some intended future state.
>
> Aren't we all used to these squabbles over terms
when we should be worried
> about the concepts? When more than one concept
get attached to a term we
just
> need to qualify the terms and move on. Experts,
such as project managers,
> will tend to attach their opinion on what makes
up a "good" (in their
expert
> view) variant of a concept - and then try and
assign that goodness as a
> requirement for everyone. So perhaps a good
plan, to a project manager,
must
> include actions. But to an architect a floor
plan is a pure future state.
>
> So I would agree with John that the most general
concept of plan (or at
least
> the concept I attach to that term) includes
intended possible worlds.
This
> seems well supported by the definitions John
sites. Actions to achieve a
> possible world make a more complete action plan.
>
> -Cory
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew
West
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 3:21 PM
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was
RE: Why most classifications
are
> fuzzy)
>
> Dear John,
>
> > But any information about the future that
"seems" to come from an
> > extensional analysis of some 4D region is
always derivable from the
> > intensional specifications that determine or
predict those possible
> > worlds (or those spatio-temporal regions).
>
> MW: Yes, and any information about the future
that "seems" to arise from
> intensional specifications is actually a
possible world or some part of
one.
> >
> > > MW: In a 4D analysis a plan is a set of
actions (spatio-temporal
> > > extents) in a possible world. The goal to be
achieved is a state of
> > > affairs in that possible world at a point in
time. It does not
> > > matter that they are in the future, the plan
is the actions you
> > > intend to take, not the desired outcome.
> >
> > I like your last sentence, which uses the word
'intend'.
> > It shows that the origin of the information is
the *intention* (with a
> > T), which determines the *intension* (with an
S), which determines the
> > *extensions* in those possible worlds.
>
> MW: I don't have a problem with intentions, they
are what determine which
> possible worlds are interesting.
> >
> > But I disagree that "a plan is a set of
actions". Whether you're
> > using a 4D analysis or 3+1D is irrelevant to
the definition of 'plan'.
>
> MW: Well I spent 30 years working for Shell, an
organization that lived
and
> thrived by creating plans and then executing
them. My usage is just how I
> found the word being used there.
> >
> > As I suggest to anybody who works on knowledge
representation or
> > ontology, consult a good dictionary for a
neutral (i.e., non-dogmatic,
> > not theory laden) opinion about the way words
are commonly used.
> >
> > For example, the Merriam-Webster 9th
Collegiate Dictionary says that
> > the word 'plan' comes from the same Latin root
as the word 'plane'.
> > That origin leads to MW definition #1:
> >
> > > 1. a drawing or diagram drawn on a plane.
> ...
> > > 2c. a detailed formulation of a program of
action
>
> MW: It is this last that corresponds to the
usage I am referring to. So
> therefore not to any of the others, which are
distinct. The plan of a
building
> for instance is an entirely different sort of
thing (and is as likely to
be of
> a building after it was built as before).
> ...
> > All these definitions say that a plan is a
goal or a method.
>
> MW: Not so.
>
> > None of them identify a plan with the sequence
of actions.
>
> MW: See 2c "a program of action" is just that.
> >
> > If you prefer a British view, following are
the four senses of 'plan'
> > in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary
English:
> >
> > > 1. a (carefully considered) arrangement for
carrying out
> > > some future activity.
>
> MW: This is near enough the sense I mean.
> ...
> > Both dictionaries emphasize the goal (or a
drawing of the goal) and
> > the intentions that led to the goal: a plan
"always implies mental
> > formulation", and the arrangement is
"carefully considered".
>
> MW: Of course.
> >
> > > MW: A sequence of action (types) is a
method, but not a plan.
> > > A plan may be a particular execution of a
method (but not
> > > necessarily).
> >
> > Please note that both dictionaries define a
plan as either a goal or a
> > method for achieving the goal. I have never
heard anybody use the
> > word 'plan' in the way you describe.
>
> MW: I suggest you both re-read what you have
posted and talk to some
people
> who do project management for a living.
> ...
> > Another comment about word usage:
> >
> > > JFS: The specifications of the plan could be
called axioms,
> > > constraints, or laws.
> > >
> > > MW: No. What is often the case is that the
constraints (resource
> > > availability, time, materials) are inputs to
formulating a feasible
> > > plan (I think of linear programming in the
oil industry). However,
> > > the constraints are not the plan itself.
> >
> > My primary word was 'specifications'. They
determine the methods the
> > dictionaries mention. There are two ways to
specify a method:
> >
> > 1. Procedural: An ordered sequence of
imperative commands,
> > as in a typical programming language.
> >
> > 2. Declarative: A set of propositions that
state the starting
> > conditions (prerequisites) and ending
conditions (desired
> > goal) for any procedure that implements
the method.
> >
> > A procedural specification is useful for
efficient execution by a
> > specific machine or by a human agent who is
not expected to innovate
> > or to deviate from a fixed sequence.
> >
> > A declarative specification is more general,
since it covers an
> > open-ended variety of procedures that begin
with the starting
> > conditions and end with the desired goal. It
allows greater
> > flexibility in changing the order of execution
and adapting to
> > unforeseen circumstances. But it does require
a more intelligent
> > machine or human.
> >
> > I used the words 'axioms', 'constraints', or
'laws' for the
> > propositions that state the preconditions and
postconditions of a
> > declarative specification. I am happy to
replace those words with any
> > other way of talking about the propositions.
> >
> > I'll admit that people rarely use the
terminology of logicians or
> > computer scientists to talk about their
planning sessions.
> > But you can analyze their informal discussions
and classify their ways
> > of describing plans as procedural,
declarative, or some informal
> > mixture of both.
>
> MW: I've spent enough of my working life doing
planning that I know full
well
> that you have not produced a plan that anyone
will accept as such when you
> have done no more than state the boundary
conditions. Only when you have
> produced a solution that satisfies those
boundary conditions do you have
> something a budget holder would sign of as a
plan.
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Information Junction
> Tel: +44 1489 880185
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> Skype: dr.matthew.west
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
> This email originates from Information Junction
Ltd. Registered in England
and
> Wales No. 6632177.
> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way,
Letchworth Garden City,
> Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
_______________
> Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
> 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
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
_______________
> Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
> 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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J
> (09)
__________________________________________________
_______________
Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|