One additional point I'll make is that the earlier email thread in which
someone brought up the issue of whether Postal Code and Zip Code mean the same
thing or not was really touching on a scope issue. If the scope of the
discussion was only the US Postal Service and mailing address in the US
(leaving aside the scope issue of specifying what constitutes the US for these
contexts/purposes, and the 5 digit vice 5+4 digit Zip Code issue), then the two
terms could well be synonymous. But if we include other postal systems and
addressing schemes in other countries in our context scope, they are clearly
not the same thing since Zip Code is specific to the US Postal Service. (01)
Hans (02)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hans Polzer
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 7:34 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology and Knowledge Engineering (03)
John, (04)
Impressive presentation. I did a bit of a double take on slide 81, Scope of
Quantifiers, since my mission in life these days is to develop quantifiers of
scope, and raise awareness of this issue among system developers. I realize the
chart is using scope in a very language-specific sense, but the concept is
still the same. The rise of the Internet and globalization increasingly exposes
implicit scope assumptions in systems. And while it is certainly pragmatic to
limit scope, we need ways to represent/convey the limited scope of our
systems, capabilities, operations, programs/projects, and
enterprises/institutions/nations (SCOPE) to others on the network as a point of
reference (and warning) to avoid misunderstanding. For instance, how does the
company you did this work for advertise/represent its network
presence/capabilities/services to customers/suppliers/partners/investors/etc.? (05)
By the way, charts 49 and 50 are examples of scope dimensions, albeit with a
single dimensional scale of 3 possible values (the yolk, the white, and
everything else). For some scope dimensionality, that's probably as good as
it's going to get. For other scope dimensions we can be more granular and
quantitative. In some scope dimensions we have to use terminology and concepts
that are very domain specific in order to capture/represent the dimensionality
and scale, but there are also quite a few scope dimensions that can be
expressed in broadly applicable/understood terms. (06)
https://www.ncoic.org/technology/deliverables/scope/ (07)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 6:19 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology and Knowledge Engineering (08)
On 3/2/2012 11:23 AM, David Eddy wrote:
> When you finish an assignment, how often does the client
> DEMAND/EXPECT/REQUIRE that you produce a glossary/dictionary/list of
> terms & definitions?
>
> Or maybe I should just ask... has it ever happened? (09)
Yes, indeed. That was one of the requirements by a company that knew what they
needed before starting a project to re-engineer their 40+ years of legacy
software. At the end of this note is a slide that states their requirements. (010)
The glossary was generated automatically by finding and extracting sentences
from the documentation that defined the terms. The two programmers who ran the
software reviewed the glossary and made some corrections. But most of the work
was done by the computer. (011)
Many of the terms and their definitions had changed over time. All the
variations in the terminology and the dates of the definitions were documented
in the glossary with cross references to the programs and database
specifications that were derived from or related to those terms. (012)
To jump to Slide 130, type "130" in the window of the Adobe reader.
Slides 131 to 138 describe how the project was completed to the client's
satisfaction. (013)
John
______________________________________________________________________ (014)
Source: Slide 130 of http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/goal.pdf (015)
Problem for Legacy Re-engineering (016)
Analyze the software and documentation of a large corporation. (017)
Programs in daily use, some of which were up to 40 years old. (018)
● 1.5 million lines of COBOL programs.
● 100 megabytes of English documentation — reports, manuals,
e-mails, Lotus Notes, HTML, and program comments. (019)
Goal: (020)
● Analyze the COBOL programs.
● Analyze the English documentation.
● Compare the two to generate:
- English glossary of all terms with index to the software,
- Structure diagrams of the programs, files, and data,
- List of discrepancies between the programs and documentation. (021)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (022)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (023)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (024)
|