Hi Alexander,
I agree. My experience is that interviews don’t work, and
you end up second guessing the subject.
If you can get your hands on legacy data (the dirtier the
better) then I’d recommend analysing that rather than talking to users.
By that, I really do mean the data, not the data model of the legacy system
(which will probably have been developed on the basis of interviews and process
models). Legacy systems provide a much better “source of truth” for
what the users do than anything they might tell you. It’s very revealing.
I wrote a (fairly light-hearted) paper for Cutter on this, see : http://www.cutter.com/offers/forensicIS.html.
It also covers a bit of the methodology I tend to use (Chris
Partridge’s BORO method). You might have to register to download it, but
I think you can opt out of being mailed.
Ian
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alexander
Garcia Castro
Sent: 13 November 2009 15:32
To: paoladimaio10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Garcia's Ontology development method
asking questions is not
very accurate. It all depends on the actual method or technique one decides to
use during knowledge elicitation and domain analysis. again in my experience I
have found useful to use concept mapping. But it all depends on the
type number and availability of domain experts. In other situations
I have also used card sorting. asking is not always advisable, as asking may
introduce an unnecessary bias in the elicitation process. Also bear in mind
that usually one goes for domain experts and other knowledge sources. The
process should be as systematic and unpersonalized as possible -not always
easy.
modularization and evolution are easy to "see" when eliciting
knowledge.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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?
[..]
_________________________________________________________________
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
--
Alexander Garcia
http://www.alexandergarcia.name/
http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/75943.html
http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexgarciac
Postal address:
Alexander Garcia, Tel.: +49 421 218 64211
Universität Bremen
Enrique-Schmidt-Str. 5
D-28359 Bremen