On 26/04/2011 1:26 PM, AzamatAbdoullaev wrote:
> Anders Tell wrote:
> "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."
> Just an idea to try. There is a new category of international organizations,
> Global Public Policy Networks, along with the existing International
> Nongovernmental Organizations (as UN, EU, WTO) and Intergovernmental
> Organizations (as Int Olympic Committee).
> It could be the World Commission on Global Ontology, the Gobal Standards
> Partnership, or the Universal Standards Network, as multi-stakeholders
> partnership, including members from civil societies, governments, government
> agencies, industry groups, multilateral organizations/institutions, etc.
Which big companies' interests would it serve?
Whose interests would it protect?
What current elected officials or high profile government departments
heads would you nominate to direct such a thing. (01)
It would likely be headed by people who could barely spell the words.
Its major operational goal would be to prevent any standard from
emerging that would negatively affect any US or EU Department's current
IT infrastructure. (02)
Its first priority would be to spend millions on studies to determine
how national and corporate self-determination could be preserved in case
a universal ontology should be attempted by an educational institution
or other NGO.
Its second priority would be to prevent such a thing from happening by
allocating all of its research budget on impact studies done by well
connected think tanks who would rehash the comments from this forum into
difficult-to-digest documents warning about the difficulty and
disadvantages of creating a universal ontology. (03)
Its development budget would be spent sending senior people to
conferences in nice places. (04)
Any left-over money would be paid to lobbiest to secure a larger budget
next year. (05)
> Azamat Abdoullaev
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anders Tell"<opensource@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "[ontolog-forum] "<ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Relating and Reconciling Ontologies
>> On Apr 25, 2011, at 7:53 PM, AzamatAbdoullaev wrote:
>>> John Sowa wrote:
>>> "I prefer to use the analogy with science. Governments and businesses
>>> sources of funding for science, but nobody can predict where the
>>> next breakthrough will come from.
>>> 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
>>> framework) and multiple regional ontologies and specific information
>> While global centralisation is a tempting approach it has some serious
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> Thirdly: Some time ago I made a small maturity ladder for explanatory
>> purpose. With the steps: ad hoc, description, sharing, harmonization,
>> 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?
>> 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)?
>> 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?
>> Sixthly: If agreeing (on concepts, assumptions,..) is complicated then
>> Disagreement management is an interesting approach that could complement
>> static mappings with a process component.
>> /Anders W. Tell
>> -- Changing the enterprise, one point-of-view at a time --
>> / Language of Enterprise Systems& Architectures - LESA /
>> 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
> 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
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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 (08)