These kinds of issues are also addressed in AI
planning languages, where an agent must make a plan to
meet some goal, and has formal knowledge of specific
'sub-goals' that must be met in order to satisfy the
top-level goal. You could substitute 'objective'
anywhere I wrote goal above and get pretty much the
same meaning. The planning formalizations need a bit
more than simply part-of (meronymy) links, as time
ordering and whether states of affairs are fluents
(persisting) or 'point-in-time' (happen once is
enough) matter to the successful reaching of a goal.
Some good AI planning formalisms: (01)
STRIPS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STRIPS
SHOP:
http://www.cs.umd.edu/projects/shop/description.html
PRODIGY:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/prodigy/Web/prodigy-home.html (02)
I know work in representing these ideas in a more
general ontology has been done at Cycorp in their
Cyc-L language using Action Predicates and Scripts. (03)
Josh Powers (04)
--- matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx wrote: (05)
> Dear Owen,
>
> 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.
>
> You are talking about Goals and Objectives. The
> first thing
> to establish is whether you are talking about
> classes or
> individuals.
>
> 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."
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
> Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
> Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> http://www.shell.com
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
>
> > -----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
=== message truncated === (06)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|