Fully agree. In fact, this is the focus of a lot of work at Adobe - what
you describe here:.
On 4/7/09 6:41 AM, "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (02)
> Adding more axioms to
> make the definitions more precise can be counterproductive.
> The reason is (or should be) obvious:
> 1. Most people who enter data or read the reports are not lawyers
> or logicians.
DN: What we have been highly recommending if more precision/formalism is
required is to modify the user interface to constrain what values and
metadata can be interacted with. While this produces the desired results in
terms of constraints on data sets, it also has a balanced negative effect of
making the overall system less flexible to account for augmentation. This
has always and probably will always be a tradeoff.
> 2. Using logic or legalese with all the qualifications spelled out
> in excruciating detail makes the definitions unintelligible to
> most of the people who use the terms.
DN: yes!!! What we find is that in defining usable interfaces, it is often
desirable to reduce the "noise" associated with each field or set of fields
yet provide a solid link so the ontological implications can be further
understood should the user have questions. This results in a much higher
percentage of completed tasks than overwhelming users with all the
nauseating details, especially in instances where they have choices. People
are basically tuned to taking the easiest perceived path when there are
choices and no discernable differences in outcome.
> 3. If most common occurrences fall within the precise definitions,
> the data entered by the users will be correct most of the time.
DN: again - this is like speaking to myself (something I'll probably do when
I'm older). I can totally validate this statement from hundreds of customer
> 4. But for items that fall close to one or another extreme case
> specified by the formal definition, the probability that the
> data item is correctly entered is extremely unlikely.
DN: This places an utmost importance on process modelers (Anders is one) to
precisely contemplate each business activity within the scope of a process,
including all it's deviations. The UN/CEFACT Modeling Methodology (UMM) is
one possible methodology to accomplish this task but even it suffers from
the same problems as those mention above. There is no formal system that
determines use of conventions for naming other than the CCTS and BP* work
done by the same organization. The inherent problem with the latter two
works is that with the grand scope, the number of people who understand it
enough to be functional is severely limited to only a few. (03)
Rose Unified Process (RUP) and OMG's MDA are also in this same position. (04)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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)