Hi Jim, (01)
Sounds as an interesting, soft, approach. There is one snag one has to handle,
there exists many perspectives,viewpoints (concerns), communities with their
own vocabularies. Marketing lingua is different from a portfolio/project
managers or a software programmers. So how do one incorporate/mix all those,
from a enterprise point-of-view, relevant languages? And for business to
business communications, which language(s) is(are) relevant? (02)
Most disciplines seems to be benefited from knowing their conceptual schemas
and vocabularies. Not really meaningful to talk about the business as the only
ones interested in conceptual models. Not long ago I worked for a bank that
used some conceptual framework bought from a big company with A, B, C, C' and D
level abstractions. The result was that noone felt that they was interested in
common languages, much less owning them and paying for its well being.
Keeping it KISS but organised is a challange. (03)
/anders (04)
On Mar 19, 2010, at 5:35 PM, Jim Rhyne wrote: (05)
> 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?
>
> Jim Rhyne
> Software Renovation Consulting
> http://www.enterprisesoftwarerenovation.com/
>
>
>
> -----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
>
> Ed,
>
> 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".
>
> 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.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>
> /Anders W. tell
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|