ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] GEM as General Ontology (orthogonal to all functiona

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ONTAC-WG General Discussion <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Peter Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:41:21 -0800
Message-id: <af8f58ac0603161741u6d07e198t37ec1179f11c7811@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Roy,    (01)

While I'll let the ontologist react to your input from the ontological
engineering perspective, I would like to comment on your:    (02)

> [RR]   I know my "approach" is not "formal" enough for some in the Ontolog 
>community ...    (03)

[ppy] your statement above is somewhat misconstrued. It may be the
case (you probably would know better than anyone of us) that "your
ontology" may not be formally expressed, and, as such, does not fall
into the scope of what the organizers and conveners of the Upper
Ontology Summit were addressing at that event, that does not mean it
is not a subject of interest to the Ontolog community.    (04)

Ontolog is an "open" community of practice with a clear, member
adopted charter (see:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nidB) ... and as
you can see under the first bullet, the discussion on BOTH "formal"
and "informal" ontologies are within the scope of our charter.
Therefore, things that don't fit into one project (the Upper Ontology
Summit being a case in point) does not mean it is beyond the scope of
other community projects. [Another example, a discussion of an
ontology for electronic health records would be totally inappropriate
under our [CCT-Rep] project (ref:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CctRepresentation), but is
perfectly relevant in the community's [NHIN-RFI-Response] project
(ref: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?NhinRfi).]    (05)

Other relevant behaviors that the has been part of the community's
culture include: (i) our abiding to an open IPR policy (ref:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid32), and (ii)
a self-disciplined professionalism where "no un-invited self
promotion" (as in the spirit stated at:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?RecommendedReadingResource#nidANP)
is observed and appreciated of the membership. We want our open
collaborative environment to be a workspace for professional exchange,
and not a free commercial billboard for the ontology industry.    (06)

I thank you for giving me a chance to re-state these cultural aspects
of the Ontolog community. I hope the above will dispel some of the
misunderstanding for those who have joined us more recently (or those
have not had a chance to retrace the growth and history of this
community.) I truly believe we need to keep the culture to maintain
the hard earned trust and respect among the Ontolog membership and the
quality of our functions.    (07)

Regards.  =ppy    (08)

P.S. please note that while there is a considerable overlap in the
community membership, Ontolog and ONTAC have very different charters
and projects. =ppy
--    (09)


On 3/16/06, Roy Roebuck <Roy.Roebuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hi:
>
>
>
> This is a later version of a portion of what was previously posted to Cory 
>C's semantic core group on Yahoo.
>
>
>
> By the way, I enjoyed the Ontology Summit Workshop yesterday, and find that 
>the following GEM approach can probably be used to support item 8 of the Upper 
>Ontology Summit Joint Communique (15 March, 2006) by providing a "principled 
>means of articulating the relationships (including differences)" among the 
>various upper ontologies presented at the summit and those to be introduced 
>later.  As described in previous ONTAC forum threads, it is my perception that 
>the ontology I'm describing below could serve as an orthogonal "backplane" or 
>"common-ground" for the upper, middle, and lower/detail ontologies 
>representing the various "world views" documented/architected as ontologies.  
>I know my "approach" is not "formal" enough for some in the Ontolog community, 
>but it can be with a bit of work on the part of these communities.  I'm not 
>trained to achieve the "formalism", so any help is appreciated.
>
>
>
> Note that my approach is available under the "Creative Commons" ShareAlike, 
>Attributed, NonCommercial License, as are some of the other "public 
>ontologies" presented at the Summit, such as is, I believe, OpenCyc.  There is 
>also a commercial version, also as is the case with Cyc.  My approach is 
>currently licensed for share-alike, attributed, non-commercial use under the 
>above Creative Commons License to the U.S. Federal Executive Branch as a 
>result of using my approach in the previous Federal Continuity Communications 
>Enterprise Architecture (CCEA) project.  My approach also provides what has 
>been sought by the larger Federal EA community  an "operational enterprise 
>architecture" with the capability of providing "virtual" or "composite" 
>applications from our architecture/ontology/knowledge repository.
>
>
>
> Roy
>
>
>
>
>
> =================
>
> From my 30+ years experience as a manager and management analyst with 
>government and then as a government contractor, I have discerned that everyone 
>in and around an endeavor needs to be able to ask and answer a whole series of 
>basic questions:  what, how, where, why, who, when, with what, how many, etc.  
>This "world model" was used to build up a collection of basic, and highly 
>abstract, question and answer sets that eventually jelled into the following 
>subject types, representing the basic categories of "subjects" of interest to 
>managing any endeavor.
>
>
>
> 1.       Location subjects (i.e., where physically, conceptually, and 
>virtually are parts relevant in the cause-effect (or sequence, value-chain, 
>flow), categorization, containment, change, variance, equivalence, and 
>descriptive relations to the endeavor)
>
> 2.       Organization subjects (i.e., who is responsible for the endeavor or 
>parts within and around it)
>
> 3.       Organization unit subjects (i.e., who performs the work of the 
>endeavor or parts within and around it)
>
> 4.       Function (i.e., what work is performed by the endeavor or parts 
>within and around it)
>
> 5.       Process (i.e., the actions taken by an organization unit to perform 
>some function within a flow (i.e., sequence, customer-value-chain) of 
>functions intended to produce a specific resource as output, using specific 
>resources as input, constrained by other resources, and enabled by others, as 
>in the IDEF0 ICOM model)
>
> 6.       Resource (i.e., parts accounted for, i.e., controlled, by the 
>endeavor)
>
> 7.       Requirement (i.e.,  the quantity, qualities, and schedule of input, 
>constraint, and enabling resources required by the endeavor's organization 
>unit and parent organization at a location to perform a function's process, to 
>produce the endeavor's functional output-resource on schedule, on budget, and 
>to the specified quality)
>
>
>
> All the above led me to develop the following endeavor management metaschema 
>(with significantly more detail within the four enterprise subcategories 
>below):
>
>
>
> Enterprise (i.e., a purposeful enterprise)
>
> Catalogs (of Types and Instances of world parts)       (documented at OMG MDA 
>Layer 2)
>
>                                                                i.      
>Location
>
>                                                              ii.      
>Organization
>
>                                                             iii.      
>Organization Unit
>
>                                                            iv.      Function 
>(with a common strategic/operation/tactical management metaschema and 
>methodology documented here at the OMG MDA Layer 1)
>
>                                                              v.      Process
>
>                                                            vi.      Resource
>
>                                                           vii.      
>Requirement
>
>
> Relation Types categorizing all specific relations       between all 
>subjects-types and specific subjects (documented at the OMG       MDA Layer 3)
>
>                                                                i.      
>Categorization
>
>                                                              ii.      
>Containment
>
>                                                             iii.      
>Sequence (with a 4d view of time/space flow represented here, and further 
>elaborated the "flow roles" below)
>
>                                                            iv.      Change
>
>                                                              v.      Variance
>
>                                                            vi.      
>Equivalence
>
>                                                           vii.      
>Description
>
>
> Flow (Sequence) Roles
>
>                                                                i.      
>Customer
>
>                                                              ii.      
>Performer
>
>                                                             iii.      Supplier
>
>                                                            iv.      Authority
>
>                                                              v.      
>Subordinate
>
>                                                            vi.      Outsource
>
>                                                           vii.      Public
>
>
> Rules (Axioms) (bi-directional relations       implied) (Logic still under 
>development)
>
>                                                                i.      
>Location contains Organization
>
>                                                              ii.      
>Organization forms Organization Unit
>
>                                                             iii.      
>Organization Unit performs Function
>
>                                                            iv.      Function 
>applies Process
>
>                                                              v.      Process 
>Consumes Resources as Input
>
>                                                            vi.      Process 
>Produces Resources as Output
>
>                                                           vii.      Process 
>Is Constrained by Resources
>
>                                                         viii.      Process Is 
>Enabled by Resources
>
>                                                            ix.      Resources 
>Fulfill Requirements
>
>                                                              x.      
>Requirements Are Endeavors
>
>                                                            xi.      Mission 
>Capabilities contain resources required on time, at quantity, with qualities, 
>for processes, to support functions, which are assigned to organization units 
>as functional missions, or are assumed/taken by organizations as enterprise 
>missions, across some location/area
>
>
>
> This then forms my idea of what is meant by a "semantic core", or as I 
>described it in the various ONTAC fora as a "general ontology" that describes 
>how "the  world works", and as I previously called it  a "general enterprise 
>management (GEM) ontology" and a "GEM architecture".  (I consider an 
>"architecture", which identifies the "parts of a thing and their 
>relationships", to be the information structure, or metaschema, of an 
>ontolog,y which I consider to be a newer form of a process model.)
>
>
>
> I believe that this particular model of a "semantic core" will succeed in 
>implementation and operation because it can be shown to encompass all other 
>ontologies and architectures because it begins with the premise that there is 
>only "one thing", meaning there is no need for "integration" of this semantic 
>core with others because it "includes" them (although their authors may not 
>realize or accept this as the case).
>
>
>
> Roy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> CommIT       Enterprises, Inc.
>
> Enterprise       Architecture for Enterprise Management, Security, and 
>Knowledge
>
>
>
>
>
> Roy Roebuck III
>        Senior Enterprise Architect
>
> 2231       Crystal Drive, Ste 501
>        Arlingon, VA       22202
>
>
> roy.roebuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> mobile:
>          fax:
>          direct:
>
> +1 (703)-598-2351
>          +1 (703) 486-5540
>          +1 (703) 486-5506
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Add   me to your address book...
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (010)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>