Engineering reports are intangible, and
represent the opinion of the engineer who wrote them. That seems at least
as intangible as an ontology. But every report is written to satisfy a plurality
of requirements, and meeting every single requirement fully and completely is
the ideal of the engineer who writes the report.
Alas, ideals are often not reached, and
one measure of a software engineering task with imperfect results is the
percentage of value earned. Many large projects can’t meet all
their original requirements at any bearable cost. What’s left is
negotiation, which represents the informal part of bargaining value for cost on
both sides.
I would expect any contracted ontology
developer to have to meet the project schedule and deliverables as specified in
whatever agreements were used. The ontology would have to meet certain
requirements to make it even fit for commercial use. It would have to
include certain licensing rights or intellectual property ownership. It
would have to fit commercial practices, its implementation would have to represent
a viable return on cost and time, etc, etc.
Needs drive requirements, which drive the project
investors.
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Burkett, William [USA]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011
3:08 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: 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)
I’m all for
requirements, Rich, and designing products to meet them; all sound engineering
starts with requirements. But can you give me examples of requirements
for an ontology and the methods by which you’d measure whether or not the
ontology designed to meet them meets them?
To me, there is some
intangible-ness to ontologies that sets them apart of concrete physical
products.
Bill
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011
3:56 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: 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)
Hi Bill,
You wrote:
... An ontology is not like a chair or a car or a
building that is engineered to meet specific, concrete, physical requirements,
and can be measured whether or not it meets those requirements. While I
agree that training and experience can make one a better ontology designer, I
don't think it's possible to completely remove individual bias from the
process.
I emphatically disagree! If the ontology doesn’t meet a
specific set of needs, whether documented as requirements or some other
documentation method, the need drives the usage. If there are no needs,
the ontology stays in the college or academy where it was originated or
partnered with.
Requirements, i.e. real human needs, always drive the market.
Research is nice if you're doing it, but it doesn’t satisfy the
fund directors who need clear returns on their last year's budget to convince
their bankers to put up another year.
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Burkett, William [USA]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 2:33 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: 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)
Chris, Ed:
I disagree that an ontology is (1) an artifact and (2) is something
that can be engineered. (Thus I support Peter's question of whether
"ontology engineer" is a useful term.) It is the
*representation/manifestation* of an ontology that is the artifact that is
created - it's the OWL representation (or CL representation or whatever) that
is the artifact. There is also the intangible aspect of what the
representation of the ontology means that not subject to engineering
discipline, but rather depends more on individual interpretation and
perspective. An ontology is not like a chair or a car or a building that
is engineered to meet specific, concrete, physical requirements, and can be
measured whether or not it meets those requirements. While I agree that
training and experience can make one a better ontology designer, I don't think
it's possible to completely remove individual bias from the process.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed Barkmeyer
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 2:57 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: 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)
+1
I was about to write almost exactly what Chris wrote below. An
ontology
is an artifact that performs a function. Engineers design
artifacts
that perform functions. Thus the term.
Peter is right that 'ontology engineers' and 'knowledge engineers' and
'computer systems analysts' may tend to inject their ideas and
misunderstandings into their artifacts. But part of that is that
encoding knowledge involves a certain amount of understanding of that
knowledge by the knowledge engineer. There is a fine line between
rephrasing what you think was said for the purpose of clarifying what
the expert said, and injecting your own understanding into the
model.
The related problem is the erroneous belief that your technology is
powerful enough to represent exactly the knowledge that is needed,
which
causes you to dismiss what you don't know how to represent, as opposed
to wondering whether your product will be able to perform the intended
function.
I repeat what I said earlier about the hubris of engineers -- many
engineers think they can quickly master any related subject
sufficiently
for their work, and knowledge engineers are no exception. Like
any
trade, there is a spectrum of competence, and the high end
practitioners
are experienced enough to know when they are out of their depth.
(As a
journeyman software engineer working with a physicist to debug a
program, I pushed deeper and deeper into the mathematics. At some
point, the physicist said to me, "I don't know how much nuclear
magnetic
resonance I can teach you in an hour!" Point taken!)
-Ed
"The greatest enemy of Knowledge is not Ignorance,
it is the Illusion of Knowledge."
-- Stephen Hawking
Christopher Menzel wrote:
> 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.
>>
>
> Hello Peter,
>
> 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.)
>
> 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.
>
> -chris
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
--
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/
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