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)
|