On Jan 3, 2011, at 4:00 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
On 03/01/2011 9:13 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:
On 1/3/2011 4:11 AM, Anders Tell
wrote:
Drawing from my inter-industry
standardization experiences
then it seems unlikely that there
will be a common ontology
in the domain of international
commerce.
One simple reason is that
different legal systems require
different conformance for
enterprise within their jurisdiction.
Yes, indeed.
I hate to disagree with such knowledgeable people but I
would think that
have international ontologies in the trade area would be
very useful.
I would think that local conformance concerns should be
addressed by
extensions and processes around an internationally agreed
ontology.
Having an unambiguous description of goods and services
crossing borders
(customs, homeland security, environment, regulatory
reporting, etc.)
would seem to provide a clear ROI for development of
ontologies.
In this case I think we are on the same page. What I was
trying to convey was that an singular ontology approach is not
likely to work. Instead it is most likely more beneficial to
look for an ontology approach with interlinked micro ontologies
and theories (MOT) that are 'pluggable' and adaptable (extend,
restrict,...)
An old and tired example, the Invoice or RequestForPayment
Message. Not really a good example since most Invoice ontologies
are old fashioned, since they are based on modeling
paper/document versions of Invoices instead of corresponding to
requests for reciprocal payment for delivery.
Anyway, maybe an request for payment could be modeled
something along these lines:
A Message MOT ala UN/CITRAL: "Communication” means any
statement, declaration, demand, notice or request, including an
offer and the acceptance of an offer, that the parties are
required to make or choose to make in connection with
the formation or performance of a contract;"
- with Communication adaptation(extension) point.
RequestForPayment Communication: with reciprocal Delivery and
Payment Commitments.
- Reference to a Product MOT with core semantics including
the recognition that different people view Products differently
depending of work perspectives, processes, life cycle, etc.
- with a Product adaptation(extension) point.
An industry adapts their own Product' MOT for their
constituents.
Two trading partners adapt and agrees on their own
adaptations, based on their industry's Product' MOT
The above is an example of an eco-system view of ontologies.
/anders
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