|
Perhaps the majority of forum participants are not
interested in this detail. Should we take it off line?
Seems to me there are two kinds of systems. One
kind, often called the intervention system, suppresses problems that
stakeholders, whoever they may be, want 'freedom from ---.' The other kind
creates experiences that stakeholders, whoever they may turn out to
be, never anticipated. (I am reminded of Peter Drucker's observation that
of the wildly successful products, 90% of the sales were for usages
that the inventor never imagined.) Accordingly the set, [stakeholders], is a subset of [problematic
situation] OR [domain of exploration]. I think this indicates that the
prudent ontologist will make identification of stakeholders Step 2 in the
process. After the Purpose and Usage are clarfied in Step 1, then the dozen or
more types of stakeholders can be identified then the six dozen or more
classes of stakeholders can be stated.
I recognize that the prevailing sequence is to
'elicit requirements from stakeholders' or to write Use Cases (for which
the Actors are simply presumed sans justification) but I also notice that the
majority of problem projects have done this instead of first addressing "What's
the $&%##* problem?" or "What are we intending to educe?"
This distinction is more than fussing about how
many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This distinction is essential in
second order situations (wherein the ontology is designed to underpin a system
that must be designed not for just the problem that sponsored it but also for
the problem that it is going to cause when activated). Often we find that
the stakeholders are the problem, therefore it is the stakeholder] set that
must be morphed over time. Presuming the [stakeholder] set up front often
bestows mantles of goodness on them, masking the more effective therapy
choice.
Onward,
Jack Ring
Educe LLC
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 8:31
AM
Subject: [ontolog-forum]
stakeholders
Jack, Alexander
What criteria will you use to identify
stakeholders and from who/where will such criteria
come?
There is a discipline that we teach, (profess??) called
'stakeholder management'.....
we consider the step fundamental to all
systems modelling activities, too often disregarded.
Seems to me your first step could lead you into
a semantic swamp. well, not defining who
should answer questions leads to all sorts of other swamps......
stakeholders is a misused
term, IMHO. I would rather talk about domain experts, within that fauna u
have different types of domain experts.
and we have different categories of stakeholders, domain experts
being one of them :-)
figuring out who is a domain expert depends on the actual
task, what is the onto going to be used for -this comes from my experience,
probably others have different views on this depending on their experiences.
intended users are also stakeholders
Its a choice,
like all other things in life :-)
PDM
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Jack Ring <jring@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Paola,
What criteria will you use to identify
stakeholders and from who/where will such criteria come?
Isn't the sequence Exchange of knowledge
--> Selection of relevant knowledge --> Application of pertinent
knowledge?
Seems to me your first step could lead you
into a semantic swamp.
Jack
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Friday, November 13, 2009 8:02 AM
Subject:
Re: [ontolog-forum] Garcia's Ontology development method
Yep, but who should answer the question? The first
step in my book is 'identify the stakeholders' then ask the
question etc etc
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Jack Ring <jring@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alexander,
Thanks for this.
In Step 1 it is
essential to gain semiotic coherence with users who may
not
understand or know how to read ontologies. Have you considered
CMap,
http://cmap.ihmc.us or other concept mapping aid in
this step?
Jack Ring
----- Original Message -----
From:
"Alexander Garcia" <cagarcia@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday,
November 13, 2009 3:52 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology
development method
> Hi Marc, check:
> www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2105-7-267.pdf
[...]
>
A quick sumary for developing ontologies:
>
> Step 1: The
first step involves addressing straightforward questions
> such
as: what is the ontology going to be used for? How is the
>
ontology ultimately going to be used by the software
implementation?
> What do we want the ontology to be aware of,
and what is the scope of
> the knowledge we want to have in the
ontology?
[..]
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
_________________________________________________________________
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
|