What in the world is the Double Diagonal IDEF which you attribute to Prof Dan Shunk, ASU? Google doesn’t bring
up anything recognizable, but the term sounds like an attractive marquee.
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jack Ring Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 1:45
PM To: [ontolog-forum] Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum]
Semantic Enterprise Architecture
@Matt - I encourage you to see economics in its full sense of
"exchange of goods" beyond the monetary level. It is the economic
facet that enables enterprise learning, which is, of course, the foundational
activity of an enterprise (he who learns fastest wins).
Good luck on your Conference. Sorry I cannot be there.
On Aug 22, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Doug McDavid wrote:
@Jack -- I agree that all this ontological tech should be
infrastructural. That's why I don't expect prison wardens to be forced to
speak in any version of FOL. But if the IT systems that wardens, guards,
dispatchers, transporters, inmate intake personnel, etc. do not support the
ways they think, operate, and interoperate, then they can be worse than useless
-- actually become impediments that the folks on the ground have to work around
to get their jobs done. I have hopes that some ontologists in the
trenches (guard towers, loading docks) can help improve this situation.
They have to be willing to get elbows deep in actual domain language, but
there are lot's worse ways to navigate the downturn, sez I.
@Matt -- It goes without saying between us that I agree with your
points of view, most especially the view that enterprise *is a* system.
With Korzybski's caveat, of course, that "whatever you SAY a thing
is, it is NOT." Let's just say an enterprise can (most) productively
be viewed through systemic concepts, and a big part of that is the system of
natural language that can be found by an alert observer.
1) Yes - enterprise semantic / ontology and language systems should be part of
the infrastructure. That is where I put it in my EA artifacts and that is where
they are realized in the enterprise.
2). I agree with your aspects but add more e.g. *semiotics, ontology and
language*, and law, your economics I name Economics Finance and Accounting (not
sure if it is equivalent), your human social dynamics I include in "the
enterprise *is a* system - in the (general) systems-theoretic sense (which by
definition includes social systems, ecology, and complexity, adaptation,
[This is where I part company with 99.9% of the EA community who don't / won't
consider enterprises in this way - my ontological commitment is different]
Now I will go back and stay in my hole - maybe.
On 8/22/2010 10:54 AM, Jack Ring wrote:
IDEF to represent some enterprise learning the IDEF crowd never
provided for modeling systems that learn (adjust (gradients), arrange (pattern
of relationships) and co-learn (acquisition, allocation and scheduling of
resources)). Maybe they have and I am simply out of date. Prof. Dan Shunk,
ASU, invented the Double Diagonal IDEF.
Regardless, I applaud your idea. A good therapy for modern ontologists
would be to have them correlate to IDEF5.
FWIW, our work has shown us that the intelligent enterprise
architecture must provide for at least seven aspects, notably, thermodynamics,
informatics, biometrics, teleonomics, human social dynamics, economics and
When implementing an architecture we often sift some functions and
features into a facet of the system usually called the infrastructure. I think
the enterprise ontology (including its many "nyms" bridges) should be
part of the infrastructure, certainly not part of the aesthetic decor.
OBTW, an enterprise ontology must change (or be changed) as usage
occurs and time passes (context changes). Accordingly, an enterprise model must
have 'ontology' as one of its nodes with provisions for morphing that node.
Yes, the bibliography must include a citation for the bibliography.
On Aug 22, 2010, at 7:46 AM, Doug McDavid wrote:
@Jack! Cool to see you out here, at this convergence of erudition
-- the OntoEAs! Your statement is nicely put.
You know, I wonder if it's time to dust off IDEF5 -- the ontology
aspect of the IDEF universe. There is some wisdom out there that the old
boys thought of, back in the day.
Makes sense to me. I see an enterprise as a system of human beings who
have a reasonably common Purpose along with an enabling set of Principles and
Practices and an empowering set of facilities and machinery. I see
enterprise architecture as the arrangement of function and feature that
maximizes the objective function of that system. A reasonably common language
is a fundamental feature of such an enterprise just as a reasonably common
schema is a fundamental feature of their information system machinery. Some
enterprises may find that taxonomies are sufficient but an intelligent, living
enterprise must have a shared ontology.
On Aug 22, 2010, at 4:51 AM, Doug McDavid wrote:
@Pavritha (and all) --
Let me present a fairly simple, but real, example of what I am talking
about (hoping to find similar interest among this august confluence of ontology
and enterprisology thinkers).
My current project is enterprise architecture for the California state prison system. In
that system there is a word commonly used, across different departments, and
that word is "bed". It is almost immediately obvious that in
this (set of) domain(s), that word does not have the common, everyday
connotation of a piece of furniture primarily used for sleeping. I would
say that I just expressed an ontological positioning of the word bed as used in
contexts that everyone is familiar with.
However, in the prison (corrections and rehabilitation) context,
"bed" means much more. What it means is the cell location for a
particular inmate. It is their entire living quarters though maybe not
eating, maybe not recreational, depending on the institution. Because of the
variance among institutions the word "bed" may bring social
considerations, such as, should this inmate have a cell-mate, are there any
gang-related issues to restrict the "bed" to a certain cell-block,
what level of security must be maintained for this inmate (maximum security,
etc.). Is this inmate a celebrity prisoner, of which we have our share in
from Charles Manson to Scott Peterson.
I am not hoping to transform wardens and prison housing administrators
into ontologists, such that their work register becomes a precise, logicalized
patois. I am saying that it is incumbent on enterprise architects to
understand the institutional architecture within they are working, and reflect
that back to designers and decision-makers. I am also saying that such
reflection would benefit from the rigorous understanding of meaning that I keep
hoping is the mission of those who have taken up the banner of ontology.
Why am I concerned (in this example)? Partly because I see daily
e-mails about beds becoming available in various institutions (whose names you
might recognize -- PelicanBay, etc.). Now, as
a lowly sub-contractor working through a smallish consultancy that is in turn
contracted with CDCR in conjunction with an IT system where HP is the prime, it
seems strange to me that institutional confinement space allocation goes out as
a broadcast e-mail, such that I get it. And this concern arises directly
from an interest in classifying and unpacking what the enterprise is saying to
itself, in its own natural, but parochial, language.
Does any of this make sense to anyone here? I think it is both
entertaining and useful, but then no one ever said I was normal!
The defence departments of Australia, Canada,
Sweden, UK and US have
been working on a formal ontology to support their enterprise architecture
efforts – www.ideasgroup.org
All we’ve released so far is the
foundation - http://www.ideasgroup.org/foundation/
- but quite a bit more has been done on building patterns for processes,
agents, information, systems, capabilities, etc. The foundation has been used
to underpin the DoDAF 2.0 meta-model (DM2) – though the resulting meta-model
isn’t what most people would recognise as an ontology. The Swedish Armed Forces
are investigating how the MODAF Meta-Model (currently a UML Profile) could be
re-engineered into a formal ontology based on IDEAS.
John Zachman was over in the UK in March for
the Integrated-EA conference and had some discussions with UK MOD on ontology
and enterprise architecture. From the brief conversations I had with him, he
seemed very enthusiastic about ontology in general.