[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Relating and Reconciling Ontologies

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Anders Tell <opensource@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:54:57 +0200
Message-id: <45C2E574-0A24-425E-8978-010CFA3E5E8D@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Apr 25, 2011, at 7:53 PM, AzamatAbdoullaev wrote:    (01)

> John Sowa wrote:
> "I prefer to use the analogy with science.  Governments and businesses are 
> sources of funding for science, but nobody can predict where the
> next breakthrough will come from.
> Indeed.
> But let's float and field-test the idea of a global ontology as far as it 
> looks to be a life-and-death matter. We mentioned the world 
> representation/reasoning equation:
> A Federated Ontology = A Global Ontology + Domain Ontologies.
> Where the world representation is distributed between a central ontology 
> (maintaining a global schema, general semantics, and common interoperability 
> framework) and multiple regional ontologies and specific information 
> sources.    (02)

While global centralisation is a tempting approach it has some serious 
complications.    (03)

Normative considerations: who can mandate/direct the use of a "global" 
ontology, what are the enforcement mechanisms and consequences for non-use, are 
all issues that must be addressed.    (04)

Secondly: the benefits of a canonical grounding, it has proven to be the case 
that it often pays to be different (new business ideas, product differentiae, 
...), that mistakes can be transformational/evolutionary forces. Research 
indicates that process standardisation/TQM etc. leads to minor improvements but 
fewer larger innovations.    (05)

Thirdly: Some time ago I made a small maturity ladder for explanatory purpose. 
With the steps: ad hoc, description, sharing, harmonization, standardization.
Here important steps are Description and Sharing. Are the ontologies described 
in a way some that they can be used by all concerned? Is the description shared 
so that all concerned know where it is and have access to it?    (06)

Fourthly: In an ecosystem setting the notions of self-purpose and 
self-regulation are of interest. Then maybe Harmonization (coordinating ends) 
should be the target maturity level instead of a mandated global standard 
(single ends)?    (07)

Fifthly:  Systems (man made) are often related to life cycles (and life span), 
investments have a horizon etc. How long is the life expectancy of a global 
ontological system with its commitments? How does this life cycle correlate 
with the life cycles of all affected systems?    (08)

Sixthly: If agreeing (on concepts, assumptions,..) is complicated then 
Disagreement management is an interesting approach that could complement static 
mappings with a process component.
<http://www.slideshare.net/EagleBear/ambjrn-on-disagreement-managment-988233>    (09)

/Anders W. Tell
-- Changing the enterprise, one point-of-view at a time --
/ Language of Enterprise Systems & Architectures - LESA /    (010)

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    (011)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>