OntologySummit2012: (Track-1&2) "Ontology for Big Systems and Systems Engineering" Community Input (337F)
Track Co-Champions: Dr. MatthewWest and Dr. HensonGraves (337G)
Mission Statement: (337H)
We aim 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. The areas to be considered include: (3385)
- working with and integrating the results of models using multiple modeling languages, (3386)
- the systems lifecycle and the issues of sharing data within and between lifecycle stages, (3387)
- the difference between requirements and the delivered system, (3388)
- systems of systems vs systems, (3389)
- the nature of system components and the difference between these and the parts installed, (338A)
- the connections between system components and what they carry, (338B)
- the specific role of social, legal, and value-related aspects in systems architecture, modeling and design (339F)
- systems behaviour, (338C)
- federated systems both as a big system, and as a solution to some of the challenges, (338D)
- principles of how to construct good quality reusable models (ontologies), (338E)
- the management of ontologies of and for large systems and the challenges in developing and maintaining them. (338F)
see also: OntologySummit2012_BigSystemsEngineering_Synthesis (337J)
- this is a combined track from those previously labeled (337K)
Refinement of Threads we could follow during this summit: (345U)
[2012.02.02] ... Brought forward from the session-04 discussion: ... (see: [ below)] (3462)
ref. HensonGraves' "Triage" slides (345V)
identify thread champions too! (345W)
- #3 - Composite System Modeling - candidate champion: GiancarloGuizzardi (345X)
- #4 - System Descriptions For Different Uses, e.g., Requirements & Design (345Y)
- #5 - Success And Relevance Of Semantic Issues In Engineering - to be partially addressed by AmandaVizedom et al. in X-Track-A1 and also by SteveRay et al. in Track-4 (345Z)
- #6 - (in lieu of the Natural vs Artificial Systems discussion) discussion of rules of engagement where Systems and Ontology discussion would make sense, essentially where Systems can pick up Ontology (3460)
- #7 - Semantic Interoperability - candidate champion: RaviSharma (semantic mapping) with support from LeoObrst (3461)
Triage on Engineering Tracks 1 & 2 (34TG)
-- HensonGraves / 2012.02.03 - ref. http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/2012-02/msg00082.html (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. (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. (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. (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. (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 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. (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 track-4 and 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. (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 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. (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. (34TE)
Please feel free edit, comment, and most importantly sign up to champion a thread. (34TF)
Enter your input below ... (please identify yourself and date your entry) (337N)
- Semantic Interoperability: Some of these are indicated in Triage slides from Dr. HensonGraves (ref. GiancarloGuizzardi and literature relevant to solutions, not the problem) and provide direction for some of the approaches / inputs to Questions on SI -Semantic Interoperability; other topics / inputs from community are invited. Where are we in defining Big Systems and Systems Engineering related or general semantics? Are there one or multiple formal definitions? What other attributes are required / involved beside vocabularies, terms, data and information (sharing and exchange), XML as transport or exchange medium, XMI as model data exchange, when we talk of Semantic Interoperability (SI)? Are there tools beyond Information Sharing and Exchange (e.g. NIEM and UCore) or Models (E-R, O-R or Metadata models) that we can leverage when determining SI? For this thread we would hope to list summary: Where are we -Current literature survey and topics on SI, in Ontolog and other forums? What additional value is brought by ontology considerations when added to semantics? Topics - Etc…. more to come. (--RaviSharma / 2012.02.04) (349Y)