Re: [ontolog-forum] I ontologise, you ontologise, we all mess up... (was

[Research PeterFBrown.com <research@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Interesting that no-one has disambiguated 'Need' and Requirement,'. They are decidedly not the same thing! ;-)

Peter

Sent from my Phone - Apologies for brevity and typos: it's hard writing on a moving planet

---

From: Burkett, William [USA]
Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2011 15:07
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
> 
> 
_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)