|
This layered models become even more interesting when applied in the general context. The LCIM is focused on machine-understanding from bits and bytes up to context of information and axiomatic constraints
... but it is for systems. These systems, however, are applied in even a bigger context (why do I choose a certain method/tool, what is my research background/worldview?). I wrote a paper on resulting challenges in the context of military command and control
some time ago, which may be of interest to this discussion as well. It is called "Beyond Technical Interoperability" and should be easy to find via Google.
Take care
Andreas
==================== ;-)
Andreas Tolk, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Engineering Management & Systems Engineering
Old Dominion University
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx [paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 7:04 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Another Call for Paper
Hay Duane
doesnt matter what we call it, as long as it can be uniquely identified, right? possibly with meaningful and short and dereferenceable uid)
( I have been evangelized :-) )
But it brings up another ontological question. What are we looking at?
if this layered model pertains to one or more of the following domains:
linguistic
cognitive/knowledge
logic
simulation/operations
systems/it
or what
then, what kind of model are we looking at? where do we place it?
is this an ontological layer we are looking at?
how do we define this kind of model in emergent interdisciplinary research?
or what?
p
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Duane Nickull
<dnickull@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The interoperability Semantic Underluying Cognitive knowledge model?
D
I hadn’t really thought of a formal name for the model when I composed it. Someone referred to is as “Duane’s Drawing” once but that is not going to work. I am open
to ideas.
Duane
On 6/12/09 11:52 AM, "paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx" <paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Andreas Duane and all
Recently I have started to move away from the (was it Morris/Pierce view?) syntactic, semantic, pragmatic three layer model, in favour of a more granular set of layers, where there is a clear separation for example between.
'semantic' and 'conceptual', as well as possibly identifying additional layers such as procedural, operational, etc
(had forgotten all about Andreas model which I quoted in another paper but not the most recent ones, its amazing to see how some areas of the brain become more active, other areas become more dormant, where is that brain informatics cfp again?)
Duane, do you have a citation for your diagram? I may need to start maintaining an index
I attach two diagrams, integrated knowledge framework is Carlisle, the more granular is mine
PDM
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Duane Nickull <dnickull@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Andreas:
I was working on a similar model to years ago. It is attached. I am glad to see I was not out to lunch completely. While I never gave a lot of thought to my work, in order for interoperability to happen, some form of understanding must be incorporated into
a model. The old OSI stack completely (and perhaps wisely) ignored this aspect of interoperability.
One day when I have put enough time in writing code and architecting, I hope to get an engineering fellowship type job and be able to work on stuff like this full time.
Duane
On 6/9/09 7:08 AM, "Tolk, Andreas" <atolk@xxxxxxx <http://atolk@xxxxxxx> > wrote:
Hi all,
Together with John Miller I am editing a special issue of the journal of simulation focusing on the use of ontological means in support of interoperability. I hope that some of you know the Levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_interoperability
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_interoperability> ) which we successful used to make people aware that you have to capture your entities, relations, processes,
and constraints (including axioms) in machine-understandable form, which means logic, which means ontological means.
Some possible topics discussed in this forum already are
- Can we embed our models into a common conceptual model of the operation space (upper ontology)?
- Can we capture model ambassadors as intelligent agents arguing about composability using ontological means?
- Is the ontological spectrum sufficient for this kind of application?
- Should we capture requirements as ontology artifacts to enable machine understandability?
- And many more
The official call for papers is accessible via the website
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jos/index.html <http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jos/index.html>
I would like to see some of our discussions featured in archived form.
Also, I am always looking for volunteers helping me as peer reviewers (hint, hint).
All the best
Andreas
==================== ;-)
Andreas Tolk, Ph.D.
Associate Professor Engineering Management & Systems Engineering
Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529
Voice 757-683-4500 Fax 757-683-5640
--
Sr. Technical Evangelist – Adobe Systems
Chair – OASIS SOA RM Technical Committee
Manager – Adobe LiveCycle ES Developers List
Blog: http://technoracle.blogspot.com
Twitter: duanechaos
Duane’s World TV: http://www.duanesworldtv.org
Band: http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury
Author – <a href="" href="http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2009/05/web-20-architecture-book-is-here.html" target="_blank">http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2009/05/web-20-architecture-book-is-here.html “>Web 2.0 Architecture</a>
_________________________________________________________________
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
--
Paola Di Maio,
****************************************
|