Hi Pavithra,
You wrote
Just suppose there is a
reality of such instance exists as the one described below : First of all A and
B has to have defined roles.. If A is given everything and B is not given
anything nor a role... what are they working off off?
Microsoft gave a problem
and asked multiple groups to solve the problem. The roles were defined there
to compete. In an organization environment, one has to have defined roles to
act or contribute appropriately. If this makes any more sense than what is
being said below
In the examples I gave, A and B are two
programmers, or one programmer and one user, or one systems engineer and one
programmer, or two programmers, or one systems engineer and one user. Yes,
roles get defined in a management ontology. But those roles are only defined
by the project planners at the beginning of the project. Afterward, each
employee tries to do a proper job of some combination of those roles.
Microsoft’s planned project for
Vista didn’t work out on schedule, you may remember, and Vista was released as a promise rather than a reality. It
took them a year to get it reasonably functional compared to XP.
The point is that the outlines of a
possible future project can be predicted with some modest degree of accuracy
only when the project is an exact repetition of another one, in every forecast
respect. If you can use Word or Excel for the software, then you can predict
that the software is known to be functional to the present extent. If you require
any kind of further refinement, as in when two people cooperate on a document,
or one is obligated to provide a specific document outline to another, you have
to put in time typing it.
HTH,
-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 Pavithra
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011
5:53 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum]
Learning - was Presentism (was Re: Ontology ofRough Sets)
|
I thought Presentism was like theory of relativity
in philosophical sense.
But reading the below responses , seems like in American world everything is
about programmers ( the colony from the colonization era) and management (
the British) who watches in 4d mode to capture performance or
whatever... It ain't funny . Because unlike colonization and blue
colored world, programmers need high level of intelligence and
education to solve multi faceted problems which includes Business or subject
matter knowledge, different aspect of development which includes , analysis,
design and development methodologies and estimation and negotiation
ability. For management all one needs is ability to
manipulate what they learn from programmers as theirs and
negotiate. In American corporate world, that negotiation can
include a golf game what ever .. ( blah blah blah.. ). It is all about
stealing game. If you are not ready for soft skills like golf games or
other games what ever, most probably you ain't going to make
it..
Just suppose there is a reality of such instance exists as the one described
below : First of all A and B has to have defined roles.. If A is
given everything and B is not given anything nor a role... what are
they working off off?
Microsoft gave a problem and asked multiple groups to solve the
problem. The roles were defined there to
compete. In an organization environment, one has to have
defined roles to act or contribute appropriately. If this makes
any more sense than what is being said below..
--- On Thu, 1/27/11, Rich Cooper <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From: Rich Cooper <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Learning - was Presentism (was Re: Ontology of
Rough Sets)
To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, January 27, 2011, 7:04 PM
Agreed, with Chris and
John both.
I think that means we all have the same view now of the architecture of some
ontology, though we certainly disagree among ourselves in SOME ways about
the refinements of that description.
Now would be a good time to nudge the refinement process into discovery of
our OTO.
I mentioned the learning curve - that happens because many programmers, with
many views, create a mosaic of rough fitting tiles. Procedures written
by A
don't match B's view, so the iteration of that refinement gets worked out by
the application of knowledge - in this case both A and B working together -
to make refinement of the Type structures until all the properties and
methods share a common consensus in operational sufficiency, that is
workable for known situations anticipated by A and B.
An ontology could model that application of knowledge, refining the Type
structure until both parties agree sufficiently. But that refinement
process explodes in work with program complexity growing only linearly.
It
still requires the inputs of A and B, both of which have some part to patch
into the emerging program mosaic. If only A and B had been able to do the
task without learning in the first place - had a copy to work from -, then
the process could have been automated. But they didn't, because NOBODY
has
ever built a system quite exactly like this System A and B built. If
they
had, it would be wasted duplication to rediscover the same consensus view
for the remainder of the project.
The fact that the refinement process has been computer assisted, but not
fully automated yet, is the reason that a 4D model is inappropriate to
accurately model the refinement process. It requires that the System
learn
how to help the subject matter expert learn about subsystem views that were
used in the past, how well they functioned, and what were their
deficiencies, ... and then reinterpret the past into the present design
of
the future System.
-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
John F. Sowa wrote
I agree with that.
I also see no problem about quantifying over fictional and
mythological places and beings. You just create a model
of them (use set theory, if you like), specify how they
interact, link them to your virtual reality software,
and quantify over them as you please.
All such things can be handled in the same way that
computer scientists quantify over data structures.
There is no difference in principle between letting
quantifiers range over the planned items in a bridge
that has not yet been built or the entities in some
hypothetical world or situation.
John
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|