Difference (from revision 21 to 22)
Changed: 31c31
|
'''[2012.02.02] ... Brought forward from the [http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2012_02_02 session-04] discussion:''' {nid 3462} |
|
'''[2012.02.02] ... Brought forward from the [http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2012_02_02 session-04] discussion:''' ... (see: [ below)] {nid 3462} |
Added: 48a49,126
|
---- '''[http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/2012-02/msg00082.html Triage on Engineering Tracks 1 & 2]''' -- HensonGraves / 2012.02.03 - {{{ref. http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/2012-02/msg00082.html }}} (01) {nid 34T6} The mission statement for tracks 1 and 2 is within the engineering domain is to bring key challenges to light with large-scale systems and systems of systems for ontology and identify where solutions exist, where the problems require significant research, and where we can work towards solutions as part of this summit. A number of areas are identified in the mission statement. From this list a smaller list of threads has emerged in the dialog. {nid 34T7} The next step to achieving the mission goal is to triage the list of threads emerging from the mission statement. The emerging list has been constructed by examining the email and chat dialog. The purpose of the triage is to produce a more manageable for which there is the interest and opportunity to make useful progress within the timescale of the ontology summit. In some cases the progress may be only to identify solutions which already are available. In other cases significant research may be needed, but within the Summit context we can at least identify the research and a plan forward. There will of course a number of other topics which would be relevant to this track, but to pursue them would dissipate our resources. {nid 34T8} The following list is the current candidate list of threads. I ask you to weigh in on whether the list should be changed, dropped, reformulated, or added to. {nid 34T9} * Composite System Modeling: There has been a lot of discussion regarding concepts needed to describe engineered and other systems regarding Including parts, components, roles, qua-objects, functions, part replacement and virtual individuals. Engineers are not the only ones interested in this, but presently it is recognized as critical in engineering. Use cases would be easy to obtain. Some have already been mentioned. While there is an enormous literature from ontologists a triaged list of references suitable for engineers would be very useful. We could also identify issues, based on engineering examples, where we can achieve something beyond literature. {nid 34TA} * System Descriptions for Different Uses, e.g., Requirements & Design: There has been discussion of different forms of conceptual models based on their use, particularly in AnatolyLevenchuk’s [http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2012_02_02#nid345M presentation] and his references, i.e., (ConradBock). This Is also a very topical issue with engineers as they need better methods of translating or relating these different models. There is lot of current system engineering discussion concerning formalizing requirements so they can be embedded as models (ontologies) within engineering languages and in refining requirements models to design models. {nid 34TB} * Success and Relevance of Semantic Issues In Engineering: This topic was introduced by JohnSowa among others. There has been push back on this topic on the grounds that it was covered last year. However, marketing ontology is not the same as establishing where there are successes and analysis of failures, and conditions that might drive success. SteveRay and AmandaVizedom are addressing this, respectively, in [http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012_Applications_Synthesis track-4] and [http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012_Quality_CommunityInput cross-track-A1], but there is need to relate this particularly for engineers. The topic is of great concern to engineering decision makers and any insight on this would help. {nid 34TC} * Ontology for engineered systems which uses ontologies and semantic methods: It has been noted that existing engineered systems already use ontologies in the pursuit of objectives. This seems a perfect place to apply upper level ontological concepts of plans, actions, and such concepts. Use cases are not too hard to come by. ElisaKendall [http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2012_02_02#nid32Y6 introduced examples]. Military systems offer a rich collection of use cases. Autonomous systems are likely already being given rules of engagement in the same way that soldiers are given them. The rules specify circumstances in which it is ok or not ok to kill someone, or mandatory that someone be killed. Clearly these situations also have legal and moral implications. There are more prosaic examples as well such as systems using ontologies to monitor their health and safety and make decisions of whether to abort a mission. {nid 34TD} * Semantic Interoperability: Semantic interoperability crosses many tracks, but has specific relevance for engineering. Many current engineering problems result from this lack of semantic interoperability. We have seen some suggestions such as GiancarloBuizzardi posing ontologies as reference models of consensus to provide bridges, LeoObrst posing hierarchies of ontologies for semantic integration. It would be good to have more specifics e.g., how to deal with different levels of abstraction, different terminology and different axioms sets. Triaged literature relevant to solutions, not the problem would help. {nid 34TE} Please feel free edit, comment, and most importantly sign up to champion a thread. {nid 34TF} ---- |