ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] XML and Ontologies

To: <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Owen_Ambur@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ahassam@xxxxxxxx, kcm@xxxxxxxxxxxx, Kenneth.B.Sall@xxxxxxxx, aschwartz@xxxxxxx, swebb@xxxxxxxxx
From: <matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 09:58:10 -0000
Message-id: <808637A57BC3454FA660801A3995FA8F045DC24E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Owen,    (01)

Well I don't mind taking a pot at this. Let us start with a 
little analysis to check if we are talking about the same
thing.    (02)

You are talking about Goals and Objectives. The first thing
to establish is whether you are talking about classes or
individuals.    (03)

My expectation is that these are individuals. You do not 
give a definition of goal or objective, but mine would be
along the lines "A particular state of affairs that you 
(whoever has the goal/objective) wish to bring about."    (04)

If you agree this would strongly suggest that goals and 
objectives are individuals (possible individuals at that
since these are not states that need necessarily come
about).    (05)

You point out that goals have objectives and that there is
a relationship between the goals and objectives, but that
something that is an objective at one level can be a
goal at another level, and presumably there is no particular
limit to the number of levels of goal/objective you can
have.    (06)

You do not say so, but I suspect you would agree that if we
arrange the goals/objectives in a tree (or network) any
lower level objective contributes to any higher level goal
it is related to either directly or indirectly.    (07)

If you agree with me so far, then there is an obvious and
well known relationship that you can reuse/specialize. It is the
whole-part relationship. Whole books have been written
about it, so that should not prove controversial.    (08)

This would mean you would be saying that an objective (for
some organization) is a state of affairs that is part of 
another state of affairs that is a goal (for some organization).    (09)

By the way, I would not have goal or objective as the names
for these states of affairs. I would give them a name like
StateOfAffairs and have relationships to organizations like
HasAsGoal, HasAsObjective. This would allow different 
organizations to relate to the same state of affairs, but
in different ways.    (010)

I hope this helps.    (011)


Regards    (012)

Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom    (013)

Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/    (014)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of 
> Peter P. Yim
> Sent: 28 December 2006 20:06
> To: Owen_Ambur@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: ahassam@xxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]; swebb@xxxxxxxxx;
> kcm@xxxxxxxxxxxx; aschwartz@xxxxxxx; Kenneth.B.Sall@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] XML and Ontologies
> 
> 
> Very interesting (and challenging) proposition.
> 
> Not being familia with the StratML CoP personally, I 
> would extend my invitation here to leaders of the 
> StratML CoP to either continue this conversation online 
> (if anyone of you are already on the [ontolog-forum]), 
> or contact me off-line, if you welcome the initiation 
> of a dialog (with Ontolog) along the lines that Owen 
> has suggested ... and we can all take it from there.
> 
> Regards.  =ppy
> --
> 
> 
> Owen_Ambur@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:52:28 
> -0500:
> > 
> > Peter, with reference to the "doing something useful" part 
> of your reply,
> > here's a thought:
> > 
> >    How about helping the StratML CoP properly model the 
> <Relationship>
> >    element of the XML vocabulary and schema for strategic plans?
> > 
> > What is a <Goal> at one layer of the bureaucracy may be an 
> <Objective> at
> > another, and vice versa.  The objective of the 
> <Relationship> element will
> > be to enable the linkage of any goal to any objective, any 
> objective to any
> > other objective, and/or any goal to any other goal -- while 
> specifying the
> > *type* of relationship being identified. (Types may include 
> such concepts
> > as "broader than," "narrower than" and "similar to".)  The 
> same objective
> > will apply to other elements, like <Stakeholder> and 
> <Mission>.  Initially,
> > the point would be to enable anyone to identify any such 
> linkages on the
> > Web but, eventually, full-text indexing/search engines 
> should be able to
> > automatically identify many of the as-yet-unidentified 
> relationships (by
> > analyzing the semantics of "well-formed" goal and objective 
> statements).
> > 
> > Please note that the <Relationship> element is *not* among 
> those that I
> > believe should be included in the StratML CoP's initial deliverable
> > containing the core set that must be part of every 
> strategic plan in order
> > for it to be part of the Strategic Semantic Web.  The 
> reason I don't think
> > it should be included is that I'm afraid it may be too 
> complex and, thus,
> > poses undue risk to our initial deliverable.  (For example, 
> unless there is
> > already a well-accepted standard set of relationship types 
> that we can
> > simply reference, I could envision an endless debate on that topic.)
> > However, if the folks in the tavern are sober enough to 
> make a convincing
> > case to the contrary, I am open to the prospect of being 
> proven wrong.
> > 
> > Owen
> 
>  
> 
> >              "Peter Yim"                                    
>                
> >              <peter.yim@xxxxxx                              
>                
> >              om>                                            
>             To 
> >              Sent by:                  Owen 
> Ambur/PIR/OS/DOI@DOI           
> >              peter.yim@xxxxxxx                              
>             cc 
> >              om                        "[ontolog-forum]"    
>                
> >                                        
> <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>    
> >                                                             
>        Subject 
> >              12/28/2006 03:00          Re: XML and 
> Ontologies              
> >              AM                                             
>                
> >                                                             
>                
> > 
> > 
> > Thank you very much, Owen ...
> > 
> > I love you answers and admire your pragmatism. ... as you suggested,
> > we will continue to "enjoy our time in the tavern" in the mean time,
> > AND, hopefully, do something useful for people while we are at it.
> > 
> > Enjoy your retirement! ... and come hang out, every now and 
> then, and
> > share your wisdom with us (if you please).
> > 
> > Best wishes.  =ppy
> > --
>  
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>  
> 
>     (015)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (016)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>