[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Quote for the day

To: "'[ontolog-forum]'" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Toby Considine" <Toby.Considine@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 13:06:45 -0500
Message-id: <005101cbac3a$266fe8a0$734fb9e0$@gmail.com>
Good focus, Ed    (01)

I, too think that what the Execs wanted is what I now would call an upper
ontology on which to develop their corporate micro-theory (ontology)..
However, when a real estate exec starts saying why *he* wants and values an
ontology, *I* am not one to slow him down, nor to explain to him that he got
the words wrong....     (02)

This thread has morphed into a discussion of how to explain the value
Ontology to business owners / decision makers, and assertion that *they*
would never be interested. My purpose in the note (as you asked, Ed), it to
illustrate that CEOs are potentially intensely interested--but not, perhaps,
if we insist on the purity of their language and approach. They did, indeed
get to become CEOs for a reason, and didn't happen to choose to become
ontologists.    (03)

tc    (04)

"If something is not worth doing, it`s not worth doing well" - Peter Drucker    (05)

Toby Considine
TC9, Inc
TC Chair: oBIX & WS-Calendar
TC Editor: EMIX, EnergyInterop
U.S. National Inst. of Standards and Tech. Smart Grid Architecture Committee    (06)

Email: Toby.Considine@xxxxxxxxx
Phone: (919)619-2104
blog: www.NewDaedalus.com    (07)

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Barkmeyer [mailto:edbark@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 11:24 AM
To: Toby.Considine@xxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Quote for the day    (08)

Toby Considine wrote:
> Not every business model *wants* precision of description and
>       (09)

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.    (010)

> 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.    (011)

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.    (012)

> 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.    (013)

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?    (014)

> Bonus points if the semantics were such that the Leasing Agent could use
>       (015)

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.    (016)

> 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.
>       (017)

I don't disagree, but I hope we can clarify what is wanted here.    (018)

-Ed    (019)

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    (020)

"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,  and have
not been reviewed by any Government authority."    (021)

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    (022)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>