Good point, Frank. (01)
[I realize you guys are already using DOLCE as your upper ontology (we
should get Doug Holmes or you or share the experience one of these
days) ...] (02)
Since you are focusing on Enterprise Architecture, and just the other
day, Duane Nickull was making a call for collaboration between this
community and the SOA Reference Architecture community, maybe you
should consider responding to that call. See:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-05/msg00010.html (03)
Thanks & regards. =ppy
-- (04)
On 5/4/07, Frank Alvidrez <frank.alvidrez@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Peter,
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> Frank (05)
> On 5/3/07 6:52 PM, "Peter Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > [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
> >
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
|