Toby Considine wrote:
> Not every business model *wants* precision of description and communication.
> (01)
That is a different matter. The objective in a trade agreement is to be
as precise as necessary to get agreement and reveal as little as
possible of the inner workings of each agent. So it is not a matter of
not wanting precision; it is a matter of choosing an appropriate precision. (02)
> Many in the commercial real estate world, for one example, feel what they
> are buying is a superior awareness of what is, or what could be, than the
> seller knows. The seller may feel the same. (03)
Yes. Most companies, not just in real estate, believe that their major
value components and commercial advantage come from some internally kept
knowledge and practices. And others contract with them because they
recognize those values, even though (or because) they lack access to the
enabling knowledge. (04)
> A model of full and perfect
> knowledge on each side would slow business and reduce opportunity.
>
> I shared with this list a couple years ago an observation from C-level
> executives at some of the largest REITs in North America, that a company's
> ontology is its unique value proposition, and is the sole responsibility of
> its executives. What they wanted from folks like those on this list is clear
> and clean semantics in which to express this ontology. (05)
I do not understand this paragraph. I think Toby is saying that the
executives want a standard upper ontology for their domain (real estate)
which they can use to develop their corporate micro-theory (ontology).
Is that right? (06)
> Bonus points if the semantics were such that the Leasing Agent could use them.
> (07)
Presumably the Leasing Agent is already using those semantics. The
bonus is in developing software that can assist the agents effectively
by using the corporate semantics as expressed in the corporate ontology. (08)
> I don't for a minute think that this covers all cases, but it is an
> important perspective, an anvil on which to beat other concepts of ontology
> on. Clearly, an ontological sales pitch that runs counter to this
> perspective would be a tough sell.
> (09)
I don't disagree, but I hope we can clarify what is wanted here. (010)
-Ed (011)
--
Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Cel: +1 240-672-5800 (012)
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
|