Dear John, (01)
> MW
> > Yes, and logic is not much help in that as a framework for analysis.
> > Great for stating the results once you've got them, but not for the
> > analysis itself.
>
> I agree. My recommendation for the analysis is to adopt, extend, and
refine
> the methods that systems analysts have been using for decades.
> Whenever possible, use terminology that they already know. (02)
MW: Interestingly, it was just the inadequacies of these tools that got me
into (philosophical) ontology.
>
> JFS
> >> Ontology is over two millennia old. For implementing ontologies,
> >> we've had FOL for over 130 years.
>
> MW
> > Neither of those facts makes ontology mature. You know an area of
> > study is mature when people have stopped arguing about it, and moved
> > on to other topics.
>
> Yes. That's my point: stop using terminology that even philosophers
continue
> to argue about. Use terminology that is well established in systems
analysis.
>
> MW
> > That there is vague jargon and that students are confused is precisely
> > an indication of immaturity.
>
> I agree. Throw out words that are confused and confusing. (03)
MW: All this still does not beget maturity.
>
> JFS
> >> For interoperability, you do not need agreement at the top level,
> >> which is only "a framework for focusing the discussion."
>
> MW
> > It is a lot more than that. Especially when the mid-level ontology is
> > being developed by a large team (tens to hundreds).
>
> I strongly agree. But your example is more detailed than the mid-level.
> As an example of the mid-level, I was thinking about the Amazon.com
database
> schema, which every vendor that wants to sell anything through Amazon must
> adapt to. The terms in that schema are defined at the level of Schema.org
or
> the GoodRelations ontology. (04)
MW: We obviously have different ideas about where the splits are. I would
have the core sales model as part of the upper ontology, I would have the
types of things that you might sell as the mid layer, and say the parts of a
pump as a detailed layer.
>
> MW
> > When you have a team approach you need to have a development paradigm
> > that consists of commitments, rules, and choices that as far as
> > possible, and this is what the upper ontology needs to provide. It
> > defines the paradigm so that the mid and lower level ontologies are
> > developed consistently.
>
> Now you are talking about specifying a large application. That is the
level
> of detail that systems analysts have been working on for the past half
> century. That is a mature community that has a great deal more experience
> about how to design a system than most people who claim to be ontologists. (05)
MW: No, just a large ontology, and there is nothing the systems analysts
have for how to do that. Indeed most of the gross errors I have seen in
systems small or large are ontological errors, arising from ignorance of the
systems (philosophical) ontological issues. (06)
Regards (07)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (08)
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. (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|