On Dec 27, 2010, at 3:46 PM, David Eddy wrote: (01)
> By a show of hands, who herewith the exception of JFS(1) knows what
> Function Points are, (2) has used them, and (3) is in an organization
> that relies on them? Don't everyone raise their hands at once.
> I'm happy to argue that since we're no where close to measuring the
> software process, putting forth ontology as an engineering discipline
> is a tad premature. (02)
(3) Was, circa 1995. In fact we used four classes of FP's to estimate
development project effort quite accurately.
Furthermore, the application of 'function points' thinking raises the
consciousness in general systems engineering to think in terms of 'functors'
which range from simple syllogisms to complex, adaptive architectural
Be aware that the presumption of software process may be false. The "paint by
numbers" software engineering process models do not produce the insights we
seek because they do not reflect the non-determinism of humans.
Beyond software process, those who are paying attention are close to measuring
and even predicting the results of software engineering activities including
not only time and cost but also probability of latent error, c.f., SLIM at
How about considering an ontology to be semiotically equivalent to a model of a
system? Would the principles, rules and metrics for one inform the other? This
is not to say that we already know the principles, rules and metrics for
discovering systems but it does suggest that those focused on ontologies might
gain from knowledge exchange with those focused on systems. At least the 3%
from each tribe who are willing and able to do so. (05)
Jack Ring (06)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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)