Hi Peter, (01)
As an engineer from the more gluteally-hirsute end of the spectrum (mechanical,
once upon a time), I can assure you that engineers do indeed "design". There
are some people with the word "engineer" in their job title who may not design.
This may be the case for (some, not all) software engineers and systems
engineers. Many software engineers are programmers, who although they solve
technical problems on a daily basis, probably don't consider their work to be
design. Similarly, there is a subset of systems engineer that specialises only
in analysing and breaking down requirements - i.e. specifically avoiding
solving the whole problem so it can be broken down into small enough pieces for
engineers to solve. That said, I've met people who call themselves software
engineers who have designed huge systems, and the same goes for systems
engineers. (02)
Architects in the building industry are designers, in my opinion, though I bet
you could find quite a few civil engineers who would say that architects just
draw pretty pictures and the civil engineers do the real design work (usually
said with some venom, and no small amount of jealousy). Similarly, in the
automotive industry the stylists will occasionally call themselves designers,
but only when out of earshot of the chief engineer, as a 1" spanner to the back
the of head really can spoil your skinny macchiato, not to mention impair your
ability to tell if silver really is this year's black. (03)
If by execute, you mean "build", then that's not an engineer, it's a builder
(funny that), technician, assembly worker, etc. (04)
I'm not sure ontology development is entirely an engineering process - there's
more analysis and research involved than there is design, IMHO. (05)
Ian (06)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Research
PeterFBrown.com
Sent: 12 January 2011 01:05
To: edbark@xxxxxxxx; [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) (07)
Sorry, engineers execute they don't design - what you describe is the work of
an architect.
Peter (08)
Sent from my Phone - Apologies for brevity and typos: it's hard writing on a
moving planet (09)
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Barkmeyer
Sent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2011 13:56
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) (010)
> +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
> (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|