ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology development method

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Jim Rhyne" <jrr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:36:15 -0800
Message-id: <000b01ca71f4$636fca30$2a4f5e90$@com>
Hi Doug,
I very much agree with your point of view. A good many of the difficulties 
encountered in projects that I have consulted on are rooted in
misunderstanding
and hidden agendas. The ontology is not just a technical tool, it is also a
social
and organizational tool.
One of the challenges of this approach, however, is the need for multiple
ontologies and a way to link them semantically. The different segments of a 
large enterprise will develop individual terms and phrases that they use to 
communicate within the segment. In my experience, there is little hope of
getting all segments to agree on a single set of terms. But, it appears to
be
often possible to get agreement on a mapping and sharing of concepts,
provided 
there is a crisp and unambiguous definition of the concepts.
There is a small amount of technical work in the area of shared ontologies
and
ontology mapping that I am familiar with. Can you and others on this forum
Suggest additional sources?
Thanks,
Jim Rhyne
Software Renovation Consulting    (01)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Doug McDavid
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 3:55 AM
To: paoladimaio10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology development method    (02)

Hi Paola --    (03)

I'd like to pick up on your point about the social aspects of this
field.  Over the years, I have gravitated more over to the social
system aspect of enterprise, and I feel strongly that precision of
language, and understanding of language distinctions, is a critical
element of lubricating the social side of enterprise (better
understanding, disambiguation to everyone's relief, semantic boundary
objects that allow different disciplines and practices to work
together, etc.).    (04)

I haven't found much appetite for this kind of discussion on this
particular list.   I follow the discussions here quite closely,
because I think ontology has the potential to become an important wave
of future development of business systems.  I would probably be making
more than the occasional contribution if there were more interest in
these social aspects.  Maybe someone receiving this knows of a
discussion going on elsewhere.  I admit I haven't done due diligence
on Ning, LinkedIn, Google Groups, etc.    (05)

If there's any interest at all, I could be encouraged to do some
diligence, and possibly set up a discussion group on this topic.    (06)

Thanks for your thoughts!    (07)

Doug    (08)

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 2:27 AM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> John
>
>>
>> I think that *ideology* is the main obstacle that has strangled
>> innovation in the SW.
>
> what I noticed is that much of the thinking (setting aside the ideology
> point) is done by computer scientists
> while in my view sw  challenges are  not striclty CS per se
>
> Information Management dont particularly count as scientist either,
>
> On top of that 'social 'science is not taken into account
>
> a bit like having a team of only civil engineers, and no architects/
> planners
>
> while its' true that infrastructure is really really important, we would
not
> want our cities to be
> run and governed solely by plumbers and electricians
>
>
>
>>
>>  If anybody whispers that JSON might be better
>> than RDF, the SW thought police immediately exile them from the empire.
>
> do you have evidence to that effect?
>
>
>
>   But just compare two groups that both started at Stanford around the
same
> time:
>
> Agreed that comparing google with protege to measure success of the latter
> does not seem fair
> its a different ball game, isnt it ?:-)
>
>
>
>
> PDM
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>    (09)



--     (010)

Doug McDavid
dougmcdavid@xxxxxxxxx
916-549-4600    (011)

_________________________________________________________________
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    (012)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (013)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>