Thanks - when I get a moment I will edit out the snide remarks I was
addressing to the American contingent, which were probably uncalled for
anyway :-) (01)
Mike (02)
Ron Wheeler wrote:
> I have added this to the Wiki under the section
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConstructingAFoundationOntology
>
> Added some section headings and fixed 1 spelling mistake.
>
> Enjoy
>
> Ron
>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> (03)
--
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 (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|