[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Len Yabloko" <lenya@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 02:50:35 +0000
Message-id: <W913911587748111232592635@webmail29>
Anders W.Tellw rote:
>Rich Cooper wrote:
>> I think we should focus on the why, the value, and the project level
>> concepts of ontology engineering.  
>I would like to propose  a *supplementatry* strategy in a value based 
>approach. It is not always necessary to create large projects that 
>invents a new set theory, a new interchange format, a new foundational 
>ontology or to asks an organization to throw out their old works and 
>start fresh or any other heavy weight task.
>Why not suggest to the ontologicaly challanged to smoothly incorporate 
>*parts* of existing onto-logical methods , principles, etc into their 
>upcoming workstreams.    (01)

I think this may work. It is some what reminiscent of what happened in computer 
engineering where large specialized machines were supplemented with PCs. I 
believe a key to successes of PC was incremental interoperability of components 
that came at much smaller prices than integrated projects. Is it possible to do 
with logical components? Is there some equivalent of extensible bus interface 
for logical components?    (02)

>A key part here is that the work products should be 
>compartmentalised/partitioned/contextualised/... so that the qualities 
>of understandability and acceptability are addressed. Mush of existing 
>work is too much, to big , too complex, too much "meta model or 
>ontology" (freighting words), for  a business ontologies to comprehend 
>and use. Making the pieces smaller and documented with examples from the 
>spatio-temporal real word could go a long way.
>    (03)

This was also a strategy for office automation with PCs and it worked. The main 
question is: what is the smallest building block that can produce immediate 
value. The example is current "mush up" trend in software. There are 
significant obstuckles, however, with its adoption for mission-critical 
applications due to lack of "enterprise bus" as a back-bone. Again I ask the 
question: can ontology engineering community show the value of common logical 
back-bone for enterprise applications?     (04)

>     (05)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (06)

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