Hi Anders,
You hit on a significant problem. Some of us hope that we can use a "curated
vocabulary" approach to address it. In this approach, the SMEs and reference
users are not exposed to this kind of terminology. The knowledge curators
use these logical concepts to organize the vocabulary, making the vocabulary
more useful, but the "business" people are not going to be interested in the
structure of the vocabulary anyway. They just want to know what something is
and what data exist about it.
What do you think? (01)
Jim Rhyne
Software Renovation Consulting
http://www.enterprisesoftwarerenovation.com/ (02)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Anders Tell
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 7:09 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] UML Meta-Model and Notation (03)
Ed, (04)
This is an very interesting experience that I share, re. how different
people interpret and use commonly used terms such as abstract
syntax-concrete syntax, conceptual-logical-physical, information-data etc.
It is especially troublesome when including the elusive "business people" in
discussions. Personally Ive never heard a "business" person saying "now Im
going to the office and work on my conceptual schema". (05)
A question arises whether we should teach non IT people / scientists such
terms and distinctions? Personally Im trying very hard to avoid using these
terms and distinctions in large industry projects since ive experienced we
can get work done more expediently. Rather talking about conceptual models i
prefer a more viewpoint- or aspect oriented labeling scheme, such a
strategic vocabulary. (06)
> I have had some difficulty in OMG sorting out the difference between an
> abstract syntax model and a conceptual model for a language, both of
> which are expressed in a metalanguage. The nearest I can come to a
> clear distinction is that in an 'abstract syntax model' there is a
> one-to-one mapping from concept to notational production (although there
> may be some lexical reuse). In a concept model for the same language,
> that is not necessarily the case. There may be several syntactic
> structures that have the same fundamental semantics or use different
> representations of what is really the same concept. The conceptual
> model may also support semantically meaningful structures for which
> there is no syntax, precisely because it abstracts the concepts from
> multiple syntactic structures that limit what can be stated. (07)
/Anders W. tell (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|