I have added this to the Wiki under the section
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConstructingAFoundationOntology (01)
Added some section headings and fixed 1 spelling mistake. (02)
Enjoy (03)
Ron (04)
Mike Bennett wrote:
> 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 :-)
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Where we can have fun and do something useful as I see it is:
>
> 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".
>
> 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.
>
> 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 :-)
>
> Mike
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> (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)
|