Peter, (01)
I once again feel like the little child trying to break into an adult
conversation. I think what's missing here is the relationship between
Ontologies, Ontolog and Enterprise Architectures. Doug and I have been in
some discussions about who does what to whom as far as upper level
ontologies are concerned. This gets real sticky because KE's don't always
agree on bigger is better or organized is better. This is great because I
believe that re-use and collaboration is great stuff. I usually stay away
from the formalities of ontology engineering because I didn't take
philosophy (which I really wish I had in school) and I'm not a KE. Just an
old fashioned PM & Enterprise Architect. But be that as it is, the
organization of a big Enterprise Architecture effort (Like DoD or Disaster
Relief, or whatever) needs to have as it's first effort, the identification
of the use and purpose of the "to-be" architecture (AV-1 in DoDAF) then the
next thing is the Integrated Dictionary (AV-2) which defines what the terms
mean. This to me usually requires an Ontology (at least that's what I
teach). So for initial efforts and planning, what level of Ontology are we
using and what is the organizational representation? Tough questions for
people not familiar with the terms, but critical for saving time and money
(Doug regularly beats me over the head on re-use, re-use, re-use). (02)
So I guess my point is that Enterprise Architectures and Ontology "common
basis" discussion are related. This is because the use of the Ontology and
it's origin, should come up early in the discussion of what the planned use
of the Enterprise effort should be. Now for the Ontology purists out there
I am only addressing Ontologies as they apply to Enterprise Architectures
not the reverse. Ontology efforts for R&D etc., probably don't give a hoot
about Enterprise Architectures, but any Enterprise Architecture effort
should give a hoot about what it's data strategy should be. (03)
Frank (04)
On 5/3/07 6:52 PM, "Peter Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote: (05)
> [branching off the thread here ...]
>
>>> [DH] do you think Ontolog should organize itself to be the
>>> custodian of all this? If not, who would watch over it?
>
>> [JS] Ontolog is not currently designed for such a function,
>> but that might be something that could be taken on by
>> a consortium that might evolve out of Ontolog participants.
>>
>> That is a good point to discuss.
>
> [ppy] I welcome the discussion to explore this further. .... I would
> even offer to (have CIM3) provide the collaborative infrastructure for
> such an endeavor.
>
> CIM3 is already:
>
> (a) working on a collaborative ontology development and repository
> service infrastructure with the Protege team (see "CODS":
> http://protege.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ProjectsThatUseProtege#nid5JM).
>
> (b) We're also hosting some of the SUMO work (e.g. as in the Ontolog
> CCT-Rep project -
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/ontology/UBLONT/CCTONT-worksheet-v0-4.html),
> and
>
> (c) providing platform for the ONTAC-WG (ref:
> http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG)
>
> Regards. =ppy
> --
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Duane Nickull <dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: May 3, 2007 6:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] A "common basis"
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> As a former registry-repository company CTO, I give #1 a BIG thumbs up.
> This would be a great manner in which to capture and share knowledge. Ed
> Buchinski, from the Canadian Government, has been trying to get this sort of
> a project afloat for years.
>
> Duane
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Doug Holmes <dholmes@xxxxxxx>
> Date: May 3, 2007 5:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] A "common basis"
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> John
> That's what I thought, too...
> Doug
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: May 3, 2007 5:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] A "common basis"
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Doug,
>
> That's a good question.
>
>> do you think Ontolog should organize itself to be the
>> custodian of all this? If not, who would watch over it?
>
> Ontolog is not currently designed for such a function,
> but that might be something that could be taken on by
> a consortium that might evolve out of Ontolog participants.
>
> That is a good point to discuss.
>
> John
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Doug Holmes <dholmes@xxxxxxx>
> Date: May 3, 2007 4:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] A "common basis"
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> John,
> I know this is notional and that you're sketching an architecture.
> Nevertheless, do you think Ontolog should organize itself to be the
> custodian of all this? If not, who would watch over it?
> Doug
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: May 3, 2007 4:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] A "common basis"
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I would like to make a suggestion about the question of
> common vs. federated approaches to sharing ontologies.
>
> Unless we have a detailed specification of what features
> would be in either a common approach or a federated approach,
> we have no clear basis for comparison. Therefore, I'll begin
> with some suggestions for what I'd like to see:
>
> 1. A repository, based on the ISO Metadata Registry standards,
> for organizing and making available ontologies, large and
> small, their pieces, components, or modules, and all the
> info about who, what, when, where, how, and why.
>
> 2. Translators for logic-based languages, at least Common Logic
> and the W3C standards, but also any others that anyone might
> wish to contribute.
>
> 3. Tools for aligning ontologies and modules of ontologies.
>
> 4. Collections of all the ontologies and modules anyone might want
> to contribute, either for free or for whatever fee the developer
> wishes to charge. SUMO, OpenCyc, DOLCE, BFO, and any others
> would all be included.
>
> 5. Etc. (open invitation for anyone to add their "druthers").
>
> This approach is necessary for a federated approach and it would be
> extremely useful for the current state where multiple groups are
> proposing competing (or cooperating) ontologies.
>
> Instead of debating which approach is better, I suggest that we
> start designing something along the lines above and let users
> "vote with their feet" for whichever collection(s) of resources
> they find most useful.
>
> John Sowa
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)
|