I agree. Speaking as one of those people from that part of the world
that is not called America, we don't need Congress to make it all
happen. Some of us even helped the US to win WWII if I recall :-) (01)
Where the action and the benefit is, as I see it, is in having something
that existing standards bodies (both industry standards bodies and ISO)
can use. Many of the standards groups have been using XML, and then UML,
and are starting to recognise that meaning is the problem not
technology. So there are plenty of examples, both as industry consortia
and ISO committees (and ISO has a mechanism for industry bodies as well
as countries to be involved in standards setting). (02)
If the financial industry is anything to go by (and I think it is), we
have industry groups, all of whom are also engaged with the ISO process.
Some standards have a message syntax but no business representation of
what is in the messages, and don't see this as a problem. Others have a
message or logical data representation but no business representation of
semantics, and /do/ see it as a problem. Business data managers are
starting to ask questions about what the techies have been doing in the
standards world and why they haven't delivered something useful and
maintainable in many cases. People are starting to recognise semantics
as a vital component of business requirements. (03)
The opportunitity is not to (a) create some giant consortium to go out
and map the world's semantics for them, or (b) get Congress (or
Parliament or Duma or Knesset or Loyal Jirga or Althing) to vote
billions of dollars for us all have fun doing it. Sorry to pop those
particular bubbles. (04)
Where we can have fun and do something useful as I see it is: (05)
1. Show some leadership in helping industry bodies to capture and model
their business semantics in ways which are complete, logically
consistent and can be owned, reviewed and updated by business SMEs (but:
1a. given that OWL and so on don't really meet that requirement,
figure out a useful answer before the inustry bodies get bored and move
away - currently they think OWL is it because this is the hot new thing
in buzzword heaven);
2. Deal with the common terms that form the simple semantic building
blocks that those different industry groups might want to build
semantics from, for example financial building blocks (use XBRL - no
question), maths terms, country, currency, all that simple stuff. Also
common things like risk, payment, liability etc. that form the basic
terms that any business entity has to relate to. Like "business entity". (06)
Granted that (2) reignites the "primitives" debate which isn't my
intention here, but I do think that the SUMO ontology splits too early
into industry verticals. As an example, to define financial instruments,
one wants to use the basic concepts of contracts, contractual terms
(which are a set of contractual clauses, and therefore a set),
jurisdiction, equity (financial), debt (financial), cash flows,
schedules (events + time), variable parameters (for interest rates,
indices) etc. etc. (07)
If we can work out how to help with these two simple tasks, and help
develop and improve the standards to accommodate 1a (for example I've
been using an OWL-based thing but I've added the concept of archetypes,
renamed everything in English, and output it in in diagrams and
spreadsheets - surely OWL can be extended in these ways), then we will
have something useful to offer which industry bodies in the different
industry sectors might be able to cobble together a few grand to do.
This is what I have been doing in the financial industry - through a
US-based global industry body called the Enterprise Data Management
Council, who tentatively found just enough money to keep me alive and
dry while I had a go at putting something together. Assuming it works
and and be shown to add value, we can keep this up without ever having
to ask Congress to scrape together a few billion for us to keep body and
soul together :-) (08)
Mike (09)
Anders W.Tell wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
> thanks
> /anders
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> (010)
--
Mike Bennett
Director
Hypercube Ltd.
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
www.hypercube.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068 (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
|