Cecil,
Many organization emphasis on terminology and have formalized set of vocabulary and their short forms or abbreviations documented. Business rules are derived from applicant laws, and policies of/ for the organizations.. Logic is used to imply these rules. Data Dictionary is also developed along with this. This is all part of business analysis part of game.
These are description of things But as Dr. Sowa agreed,, there is more information that is needed to automate those things. .Point of Ontology is... it would provide more information about the components and functionality of the things..
In Computer Science world people did not use the world "Ontology". We used terminology such as Business Requirements, Business Rules, Data
Dictionary, Analysis and design etc. In addition we have process modeling and data modeling etc with support to certain architectural pattern. This supports, tiered architecture patterns with databases as back end.
For enterprise wide, we used "Enterprise Architecture" as the terminology to model the enterprise wide information and knowledge. And domain or segment architecture for each domain.
We can automate or implement anything when such descriptions and design model are available.. We do not use the world "Ontology" in traditional software or system development world.
It is the AI and Knowledge management people use the world Ontology to do the same.
Whether we use the word " Ontology" or not, the above phases need to be addressed to automate anything. The world " Ontology" seems more generic than Business requirements, Rules, Analysis, design, ( process and data modeling ..) phases to describe things in domain..
As long as we have all of that, I do not care whether we use the world "Ontology" or not.
Regards,
Pavithra
--- On
Sat, 12/25/10, Cecil O. Lynch, MD, MS <clynch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Cecil O. Lynch, MD, MS <clynch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest from SOA: The SOA Ontology Technical Standard
To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Saturday, December 25, 2010, 12:27 PM
Pavithra, I agree with John and challenge you to build a useful, shareable ontology without a foundation of well defined and structured terminology. This is part of a diagram that I have used to show that foundation and you cannot leave out any part of these components and end up with an ontology that you can do sound reasoning across, in my opinion. 
Cecil From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pavithra
Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2010 8:58 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: [SPAM] Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest from SOA: The SOA Ontology Technical Standard Dr. Sowa,
I beg to disagree.
Termonilogy alone does not help with computerization. You may call a "brain" a "brain" that is not going to automate the brain!
What is a brain ? How does it work? Work are the components? how to they interrelate? etc, etc.. are the things that need for automation. Ontology would provides that.
So folks, give your brain a little break and enjoy the holidays. Before all systems become word processors!
Pavithra
--- On Sat, 12/25/10, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest from SOA: The SOA Ontology Technical Standard
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Saturday, December 25,
2010, 11:32 AM
|
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
|
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|