New to the forum but a while back someone mentioned the concept of form and
function which are architectural principles - more specifically a heuristic
"form follows function" (or more accurately 'That form ever follows function')
which can be attributed to American architect Louis Sullivan who was a mentor
to another American architect: Frank Lloyd Wright. Architecture deals with the
principles of design, organization and especially structure - the why. Whereas
engineering typically involves the what and how. For architects, an engineering
background is very helpful but not a necessity as engineers are often engaged
after the architectural work to "do the math" and make sure the structure does
not break the laws of physics or man. (01)
In my own work as an engineer, I began moving toward architecting information
management systems from the human users perspective (the why) some years ago
and so that naturally led me into working with ontologies to help design,
organize and structure not just the definition of a term but also the
sense/meaning as part of the overall structure of the information the system
needed to develop, aggregate, reason on and present to the human user. Therein
I was drawn to CS Peirce and the usual suspects. Perhaps Ontology Architect?
Just a thought. (02)
v/r
Buck
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christopher Menzel
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 3:32 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [ontolog-forum] I ontologise, you ontologise, we all
mess up... (was: Modeling a money transferring scenario, or any of a range of
similar dialogues) (03)
On Jan 11, 2011, at 1:49 PM, Peter Brown wrote:
> ...
> I remain baffled by the terms (and the presumed concepts behind them - which
>are *not* clear at all) of 'ontology engineer' and 'ontology engineering'. I
>do not think that one can 'engineer' an ontology any more than one can
>engineer a meeting: one can bring skills, methods and tools to the meeting (as
>Chair of a meeting for example) and can make sometimes significant progress
>even in ignorance of the subject of the meeting - if the purpose of the role
>of Chair is to help the meeting to come to some conclusion. However, once a
>Chair starts to pronounce on matters and get involved in the substance of a
>meeting, those skills and methods become overshadowed by their ignorance or
>partisanship. (04)
Hello Peter, (05)
I don't understand your analogy. An ontology is a concrete artifact (unlike a
meeting). And, like the production of any quality artifact, the production of
a good ontology requires training and expertise. On the face of it, anyway,
"ontology engineer" seems a reasonable title for those with the appropriate
training and expertise. (Opinions vary, of course, regarding the nature and
extent of such training and expertise.) (06)
I have to say that I don't see how an ontology is in any way enough like a
meeting to support your argument that, because it makes no sense to engineer a
meeting, it makes no sense to engineer an ontology. (07)
-chris (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|