Well said. Many CEO's are frustrated because when their staff is directed to
implement a wonderful new idea the CEO discovers a few weeks later that all
sorts of things are being done which have little to do with the original idea.
As Francis Ford Copolla said, "the secret to making a great movie is getting
everyone to make the same movie." The choices seem to be a) get everyone on a
precise language or b) allow many "nyms" with adequate vetting and confirmation
to converge on common mental models. It seems that taxonomists and ontologists
shy away from 'nyms' because that requires so many alternate paths throughout
the enterprise data model. Is this really the impediment?
On Jan 4, 2011, at 11:06 AM, Toby Considine wrote: (01)
> Good focus, Ed
> 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....
> 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
> "If something is not worth doing, it`s not worth doing well" - Peter Drucker
> 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
> Email: Toby.Considine@xxxxxxxxx
> Phone: (919)619-2104
> blog: www.NewDaedalus.com
> -----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
> Toby Considine wrote:
>> Not every business model *wants* precision of description and
> 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.
>> 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.
> 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.
>> 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
> 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?
>> Bonus points if the semantics were such that the Leasing Agent could use
> 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.
>> 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.
> I don't disagree, but I hope we can clarify what is wanted here.
> 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
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have
> not been reviewed by any Government authority."
> 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
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 (03)