Ed wrote:
So the question is: Where do the model analysis guidelines come from?
> And how will the analysts work with the domain experts to understand the
> intent when they don't like the structure of the ontology? (01)
I read this as a timely reminder to return and focus on the basic subject of
the Forum: Standard Ontology Reference, be it a Globally Federated Ontology
or a Lattice of Ontologies. (02)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Barkmeyer" <edbark@xxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Means for Systems Engineering (03)
> Matthew West wrote:
>
>> [MW] The first thing I would do is ask for a review of the
>> models/ontologies
>> developed. There are a number of quality checks that can be done that are
>> independent of the subject area, the results of which can improve the
>> utility of the models/ontologies.
>
> Since Howard avers that the community of domain experts has reviewed and
> approved these models as accurate knowledge, I assume that Matthew is
> suggesting some kind of "model quality" analysis. If there is published
> agreement on best practices in modeling (by a large body of experts in
> that field), then a team can be trained to employ those in doing the
> model analyis. But I'm not aware of any such published agreement, and
> the last thing the systems engineering models need is model analysis by
> a self-appointed team with a consistent but not clearly appropriate
> viewpoint.
>
> Howard, Matthew and others will recall the damage done to well-developed
> domain models by a team of expert SQL database designers considered to
> be "information modeling" experts in a not-so-distantly related ISO
> activity. I can envisage coercion of the models to OWL/DL by
> well-meaning model analysts who have a similar shortage of breadth in
> their vision.
>
> So the question is: Where do the model analysis guidelines come from?
> And how will the analysts work with the domain experts to understand the
> intent when they don't like the structure of the ontology?
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> National Institute of Standards & Technology
> Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694
>
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
> and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (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)
|