Dear Anders, (01)
That's a rather good slide. In the early 90's I would assess Shell as being
at the Add Hoc level, and I suspect they have a mixture of Common (which I
take to be mapped where there is an overlap) and Managed variants now,
mostly managed variants. I would not expect to see a canonical solution in
the next few decades, if ever. (02)
Regards (03)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 560 302 3685
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (04)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (05)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Anders Tell
> Sent: 14 March 2011 09:04
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Using controlled natural languages for
ontology]
>
> On Mar 14, 2011, at 9:36 AM, Matthew West wrote:
>
> > Dear John,
> >
> >> JFS
> >>>> The point I have been repeating in different ways is that there is no
> >>>> such thing as an ideal upper level. Many people have reached that
> >>>> conclusion after working very hard to find one.
> >>
> >> DF
> >>> This follows from the fact that what is best suited for one purpose
may
> >>> not be best suited for another. If one application uses a narrow
number
> >>> of concepts, it need not have upper ontology components irrelevant to
> >>> the application.
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> And this is true even for a single corporation. All departments may
> >> contribute to the same product line. But engineering, manufacturing,
> >> sales, finance, buildings, services, shipping, human resources, etc.,
> >> have very different ways of talking about and dealing with them.
> >
> > MW: Yes, but the different departments need to talk to each other, and
this
> > is most efficiently done with a "common language" which need not be
"ideal"
> > for any of them, but which each is able to translate into and out of.
What
> > we found in Shell was, that as you did this successively, there was
> > considerable advantage in giving up your own "language" and increasingly
> > sharing fewer more common ones.
>
>
> An interesting dimension at play here; how much centralisation is needed
in a
> corporation with extensive work specialisation.
>
> The following diagram was made for another purpose but illustrates a
scale:
> Typically commonality is deemed as beneficial, but sometimes an ad hoc
> approach is of benefit depending on ones (investment) horizon.
>
<http://www.workem.com/rl/fesa/fragments/modeling/LargeScaleSystems/ls_centr
al
> isation/files/page42-mot_artifact_canonical.jpg>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|