ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] Ontology development method

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Tolk, Andreas" <atolk@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:45:07 -0500
Message-id: <4839109173C2DF4FAE02C9C3FBEE973F2EACBCC3D5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I also agree with this point of view.
Ontologies are a great way to understand such differences in conceptualization, 
in particular as they are formal specifications of conceptualizations. I like 
the work of Wache on how to build federations from such different conceptual 
views on a problem. The two papers I normally recommend are H. Wache, T. 
Vogele, U. Visser, H. Stuckenschmidt, G. Schuster, H. Neumann, and S. Hübner, 
"Ontology-based Integration of Information -- a Survey of Existing Approaches," 
Proceedings of the IJCAI-Workshop Ontologies and Information Sharing, Seattle, 
WA: 2001, pp. 108-117 and H. Wache, "Towards Rule-Based Context Transformation 
in Mediators," in Proceedings of the International Workshop on Engineering 
Federated Information Systems (EFIS), 1999, pp. 107-122.
One of the main advantages of ontological approaches is that they make such 
differences explicit and make them applicable to engineering solutions as well. 
The mediation between viewpoints to avoid conceptual misalignments of 
contributions to an overarching solution is something we see everywhere popping 
up, be it service oriented architecture and model based developments.
Best wishes
Andreas
==================== ;-)
Andreas Tolk, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Old Dominion University
Norfolk, VA, USA    (01)




-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Rhyne
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 2:36 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology development method    (02)

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    (03)

-----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    (04)

Hi Paola --    (05)

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.).    (06)

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.    (07)

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.    (08)

Thanks for your thoughts!    (09)

Doug    (010)

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
>
>    (011)



--     (012)

Doug McDavid
dougmcdavid@xxxxxxxxx
916-549-4600    (013)

_________________________________________________________________
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    (014)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (015)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (016)

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