[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology Question concerning WebArchitecture and

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Jack Park <jack.park@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:47:53 -0700
Message-id: <46A61F29.3070006@xxxxxxx>
Not an issue of safe/unsafe, but we discovered while beginning to use 
our IRIS platform [1] in SRI's CALO project, that there was an 
occasional misfit between what the ontologists had written into CALO's 
controlling ontology and how office workers using the system see/use 
that universe. We wrote about it in a paper titled "Just For me: Topic 
Maps and Ontologies" [2] in which we discuss wrapping ontologies with 
topic maps.    (01)

[1] http://www.openiris.org/
[2] http://www.adam.cheyer.com/papers/Just_For_Me-Final.pdf    (02)

Jenny ure wrote:
> I agree Denise that one approach can be constraining - in practice it 
> can also be dangerous - though don't want to deny the value of a shared 
> infrastructre for supporting data sharing
> Colleaguesdesigning software for safety compliance across oil and gas 
> installations found that having one common model
> actually made sites LESS safe. Being forced to implement systems that 
> did not reflect the local context meant that in practice it increasingly 
> necame the norm to disregard ALL of it. His approach was to define a 
> common core that reflect fairly invariant features and have a formally 
> documented locally managed version that reflected the needs and 
> affordances of the local domain and the local workforce.
> Jenny Ure
>     (03)

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    (04)

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