ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Roy Roebuck" <roy.roebuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ONTAC-WG General Discussion <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Peter Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:09:37 -0800
Message-id: <af8f58ac0603161809o31d9fdcbqe7f172a29b99ebac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
ERRATA:    (01)

attn: Roy et al.    (02)

... [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 ).]    (03)

(the 2nd link above was bad previously .. now corrected below too.)    (04)

=ppy
--    (05)


On 3/16/06, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Roy,
>
> While I'll let the ontologist react to your input from the ontological
> engineering perspective, I would like to comment on your:
>
> > [RR]   I know my "approach" is not "formal" enough for some in the Ontolog 
>community ...
>
> [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.
>
> 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 ).]
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Regards.  =ppy
>
> 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
> --
>
>
> 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    (06)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>