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)
Jack
[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)
|