Hans,
(01)
You wrote:
(02)
> At least we can describe the institutional and domain contexts for the
> systems that interact over the network, and do so explicitly and in a network
> accessible fashion - as opposed to leaving context implicit, which so much of
> this discussion forum tends to do.
(03)
So, when we publish our "product data sheet ontology", the institutional and
domain context will be that it was published by NIST in 2013, based on some
communications with organizations in the "process plant" industries (chemicals,
refineries, food products). Is that sufficient 'context'? Does it tell you
what the viewpoint is? I can tell you that it doesn't, because part of our
problem was accommodating multiple viewpoints in that space: design engineer,
engineering software supplier, plant builder, equipment vendor, plant operator.
So, of course, the ontology supports all of them not equally badly, and
matches none of them. It takes months to get a sense of the differences in
viewpoints, because the people who hold them only tell you how they see the
space, do you (sooner or later) see the conflicts, but you have to tease out
the "principles" involved in their views.
(04)
> Over time, people/organizations will adopt
> common context dimensional descriptions that they find are a close match to
> their own needs, rather than defining/assuming their own - which is
> effectively what they do today because there generally aren't many that are
> explicitly/openly available.
(05)
In my experience, people/organizations will adopt specifications, software and
practices that they find are a close match to their needs. They will
simultaneously insist that their viewpoint and context are special in ways that
are their own. Consultants are always amused by companies carefully guarding
business, engineering, manufacturing practices that they believe are unique to
them and are the basis for their competitive edge, when many organizations,
including some of their competitors, do exactly the same things. In so many
words, one does not adopt someone else's context, unless the purpose is to be
acquired or to be a long-term partner. Parties may, however, agree that they
have a large overlap in their viewpoints. But they usually find that out by
discussion and exploration of mutual interests.
(06)
> When e-retailers adopt the Amazon framework and business model to sell
> their stuff on the Internet,
(07)
They are adopting the Amazon practices that they expect will work well for
their "unique" application.
(08)
> they effectively adopt the Amazon model for the
> context dimensions of selling certain types of items by and to certain types
>of
> sellers and buyers and within certain ranges of governmental legal and
> financial regulatory frameworks (but not outside those types and ranges).
(09)
The "context dimensions"? I am sure they would tell you their "context" is a
different marketplace, in which they hope not to find Amazon as a competitor.
Further, they will tell you that their business experience has taught them much
more about how to organize their content and their customer support for their
target market than an overgrown bookseller will ever learn. They may adopt the
Amazon viewpoint on Internet sales, yes, but they will specialize the practices
for their context, and introduce their own practices for customer support
beyond the point of sale.
(010)
> A similar phenomena is occurring in the domain of smartphone providers, cell
> service providers, and smartphone data services. And there is a small overlap
> between these two context domains. I'm suggesting we should promote
> enabling this type of evolutionary process for increasingly broad and
>explicit
> representation of contexts in overlapping domains.
(011)
What do you see as the "explicit representation of context" here? I see
adoption of a common viewpoint with respect to certain practices, and I don't
doubt that that viewpoint is described in text. Is that what you mean by
"explicit representation" and "context"?
(012)
> And ontologies should be explicit with regard to such context assumptions
(013)
I.e., My ontology assumes you are selling smartphone services? Or my ontology
assumes you are using the Amazon approach to Internet sales?
(014)
Assuming that you could tag each of those with a URI that refers to some
natural language publication on the practice, is that what you mean by
"explicit representation of context"? I think you will find that many
published OWL models do in fact point to such publications, in annotations, of
course. And I suppose one could formalize those to pointers to "Dublin core"
objects -- formal metadata.
(015)
Which leads me to a different question: Is what you have in mind just formal
metadata for ontologies?
(016)
> they make - even if they don't include them all because they aren't aware
> they are making them or consider them "safe to ignore", and even if there
> isn't broad agreement on how to represent context. Not being able to
> understand some ontology's context assumptions, or finding them
> significantly incomplete, should be an important clue as to the ontology's
> utility/applicability to one's own perceived contexts and associated scope.
(017)
Yes. So you are talking about providing enough annotations to make some part
of your context somewhat clear to human readers? That is not at all what I
understood by "explicit representation of context". I (foolishly) assumed that
you were talking about some formal specification that might enable a tool to
reason whether the context of an off-the-shelf ontology would be consistent
with the "formal representation of target context" of a would-be user.
(018)
> The context and domain/capability scope dimensions in the NCOIC SCOPE
> model are a starting point for systems/organizations interacting over
> network connections, derived from actual context/scope mismatches
> encountered on a fairly broad range of real systems.
(019)
In a narrow domain in which the meaning of "scope" terms is presumably
well-defined.
(020)
-Ed
(021)
"There is nothing so pernicious to large-scale designs as the seductiveness of
simple examples."
-- Selden Stewart
(022)
>
> Hans
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Barkmeyer, Edward J
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 11:37 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Amazon vs. IBM: Big Blue meets match in battle
> for the cloud
>
> Hans,
>
> I think we can all agree. All models are wrong. Every model is made from
> some viewpoint that determines what is important and what is unimportant
> to the viewer. That which is unimportant will be omitted or described
> inaccurately or downright incorrectly. The factorization of the modeled
>world
> itself depends in part on the viewpoint. There is a an IEEE standard -- IEEE
> 1471, last revised long about 2000 -- that describes these ideas, and their
> consequences for concept architectures and model integration.
>
> Every ontology is a model. It expresses a microtheory that corresponds to
> the viewpoint from which it is created. The upper ontology folk have a
> somewhat different view from that of IEEE 1471, in that they see the lower
> microtheories being informed by a consistent upper ontology during their
> development, which avoids certain viewpoint pitfalls, whilst enforcing the
> "context" of the upper ontology and its commitments (witting and
> unwitting). But we also see that having a common upper ontology doesn't
> necessarily lead to consistent microtheories for human physiology, precisely
> because of differences in viewpoint on specific physical structures that are
> not addressed more than generally in the upper ontology.
>
> The problem is that no one has yet figured out how to document viewpoint
> or context effectively. It comes down to "how we were thinking when we
> made the model". If you are aware of other views of the same space when
> you make the model, you may document what you see as the principal
> differences and commonalities, but you can only do that for other viewpoints
> that you have some understanding of. I have referred before to Hyunbo
> Cho's "unknown knowledge" oxymoron, which refers to assumptions that
> you are not even aware that you are employing.
>
> So, unless you have some newly enlightening proposal for "context
> documentation", there is not much point in rhapsodizing on this theme. We
> all agree that "context" is why microtheories for a domain can be self-
> consistent but mutually inconsistent and still useful to their authors. But
>no
> one knows how to document "context". The description of the context for a
> microtheory will be made by the author and thus limited to his understanding
> of possible viewpoints on the domain -- "the context for the context" (which
> sounds a bit like Nietzsche, but it is more like "turtles all the way down").
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> National Institute of Standards & Technology Systems Integration Division,
> Engineering Laboratory
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8260 Work: +1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8260 Mobile: +1 240-672-5800
>
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have
> not been reviewed by any Government authority."
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hans Polzer
> > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 5:50 PM
> > To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Amazon vs. IBM: Big Blue meets match in
> > battle for the cloud
> >
> > Until you start including a description of the context(s) within which
> > the representation of entities applies, you won't get very far. Every
> > legacy system has an assumed context and scope for what it does, and a
> > specific perspective on that context, and specific frames of reference
> > used to describe the relevant "world" from its perspective. That's why
> > we have a "tangled mess".
> >
> > By the way, all systems are legacy systems - including the one you are
> > designing this moment (from the perspective of the designer of the
> > next
> > system) - and no one will ever get the resources to redesign and
> > reimplement all systems that do everything for everyone's purposes:
> > live with it! Nothing operationally useful gets built without
> > constrained scope, time, and resources, which limits the n-space of
> > context ranges it can practically address.
> >
> > All attempts to define entities and relations in a context
> > free/neutral manner as a solution to interoperability are doomed to
> > have limited validity (i.e., to those systems/applications that share
> > their implicit context/scope assumptions). Only when we start being
> > explicit about our context and scope assumptions within which we are
> > describing entities and relationships will we be able to semi-reliably
> > share meaning between arbitrary systems. So the first order of
> > business should be an ontology for describing context and scope
> assumptions.
> >
> > Hans
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kingsley Idehen
> > Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:35 PM
> > To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Amazon vs. IBM: Big Blue meets match in
> > battle for the cloud
> >
> > On 7/27/13 10:06 AM, deddy wrote:
> > > Michael -
> > >
> > >> your example becomes more and more specific and challenging :-)
> > >> Yes, if all you have is the code, you are in trouble and SW
> > >> technologies are not a magic bullet for solving it.
> > >>
> > > Welcome to the world of legacy systems.
> >
> > By "legacy systems" you mean a subjective tangled mess rife with
> > contextual fluidity?
> >
> > >
> > > I hope against hope that somewhere in the SW stack of tools there
> > > just might be something to help with understanding legacy systems.
> >
> > Yes, they help since "meaning" is critical to "understanding" anything.
> > Thus, you can map out a tangled mess, rife with contextual fluidity,
> > by decomposing the aforementioned mess into:
> >
> > 1. entities
> > 2. entity relationships
> > 3. entity relationship roles
> > 4. entity relations .
> >
> > You can achieve the above with computer and human oriented languages.
> > >
> > > It's a very SMALL hope.
> >
> > I have big hopes, the challenge lies in getting everyone to look at
> > the task like they would a jigsaw puzzle game where every resource is
> > a puzzle-piece, as exemplified by the World Wide Web.
> >
> > >
> > > What I do see is SW creating yet another tangled layer of
> > > undocumented,
> > poorly understood systems.
> >
> > Of course not.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I've been attending monthly MIT SW meetings for 4+ years. Once, by
> > > chance, I did catch TBL himself saying to the audience that
> > > "Semantic Web" was a clever marketing label, but that in reality,
> > > "linked data" would
> > be a more appropriate description since there really isn't anything
> > special about semantics in the SW.
> >
> > Hmm..
> >
> > I think TimBL was trying to unravel the obvious fact that the Web he
> > envisioned was a read-write global graph comprised of:
> >
> > 1. entities -- things
> > 2. entity relationships -- statements describing things 3. entity
> > roles -- relationship roles e.g., subject, predicate, and object 4.
> > entity relations -- sets of relationships scoped to common predicates
> > 5. relation semantics -- exploitation of First-order logic as the
>foundation
> for relation semantics.
> >
> > In the context of the World Wide Web, HTTP URIs would serve as the
> > denotation (naming) mechanism for the items above.
> >
> > The World Wide Web was always about a global entity relationship graph
> > [1] where humans and machines would be able to comprehend entity
> > relationship semantics [2]. Basically, the fidelity or entity
> > relationship semantics of this global entity relationship graph would
> > evolve (continuously) over time via crowd-sourcing.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > As you may have noticed, my passion is for a process—tool assisted,
> > > but requiring human knowledge at the beginnings —to extract & make
> > formal the MENSA_FL --> MEssage Notify Stop Action Flag --> "a
> > collection of dunning flags"
> > > process.
> >
> > We (certainly I) just need to find the right way to articulate that we
> > (You and
> > I) are on the same page. At the top of this response, what I outlined
> > are steps that fall into your "beginnings" view point i.e., that
> > domain experts and systems analysts MUST be key participants in the
> > process. That's totally different from the typical pattern where
> > programmers (short on domain expertise and industry experience)
> > generally make things up as they experiment and play with the latest
> > and greatest programming language, where the real focus is parsing
> > capabilities, language idioms, and data representation formats etc..
> >
> > To conclude, we just need to align our own entity relationship
> > semantics as we discuss these matters, en route to common
> > understanding :-)
> >
> > Links:
> >
> > [1] http://bit.ly/10Y9FL1 -- Proof that Relationship Semantics &
> > Linked Data were part of original World Wide Web design and proposal
> > [2] http://bit.ly/16EVFVG -- Illustrating the loose-coupling of
> > Identifiers (e.g., URIs), Structured Data, and Logic exemplified by
> > Web Architecture [3] http://slidesha.re/18CtxGK -- Blogic Presentation by
> Pat Hayes.
> >
> >
> > Kingsley
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Does "dunning" have a German meaning? It means the process to send
> > > someone a series of (increasingly firm) bills to collect a debt. R.G.
> > > Dun was an early (1840s) credit rating business here in the States &
> > eventually merged to become Dun & Bradstreet, which survives to this day.
> > >
> > > ______________________
> > > David Eddy
> > > Babson Park, MA
> > > 781-455-0949
> > >
> > >
> > >> -------Original Message-------
> > >> From: Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> To: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Amazon vs. IBM: Big Blue meets match
> > >> in
> > battle for the cloud
> > >> Sent: 2013-07-27 08:50
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Hello David,
> > >>
> > >> your example becomes more and more specific and challenging :-)
> > >> Yes, if
> > all
> > >> you have is the code, you are in trouble and SW technologies are
> > >> not a
> > magic
> > >> bullet for solving it.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >>
> > >> Michael Brunnbauer
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:44:17AM -0400, David Eddy wrote:
> > >> > Michael -
> > >> >
> > >> > On Jul 26, 2013, at 9:13 AM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > distributed in the heads of two experts for one or the other
> system.
> > >> >
> > >> > Let us assume the experts are not readily available...
> > >> >
> > >> > - I'm too green to formulate a coherent question
> > >> >
> > >> > - experts do not like to be pestered by clueless newbie questions
> > >> >
> > >> > - experts are simply too busy
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > The "knowledge" that has trickled down to me is as most
> > >> technical
> > documentation severely stripped of useful
> > >> > context & content.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > > once you have discovered that M0760 and MENSA-FL are the same
> > >> >
> > >> > That's the hard part... how are M0760 & MENSA-FL discovered to
> > >> be
> > the same?
> > >> >
> > >> > Remember, we're looking at a data structure with 1700 data
> > >> elements & analysts/programmers are pawing over
> > > this stuff on a regular basis.
> > >> >
> > >> > In theory there should be documentation... but situations like
> > >> this typically come down to: "the code is the
> > > documentation."
> > >> >
> > >> > - David
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> > _______
> > >> > 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
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> ++ Michael Brunnbauer
> > >> ++ netEstate GmbH
> > >> ++ Geisenhausener Straße 11a
> > >> ++ 81379 München
> > >> ++ Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
> > >> ++ Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89
> > >> ++ E-Mail brunni@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> ++ http://www.netestate.de/
> > >> ++
> > >> ++ Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
> > >> ++ USt-IdNr. DE221033342
> > >> ++ Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
> > >> ++ Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> > _______
> > >> 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
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Kingsley Idehen
> > Founder & CEO
> > OpenLink Software
> > Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog:
> > http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> > Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> > Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> > LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> > _______
> > 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/
> 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)
|