Maybe I can help in this case (an formal ontology). I work with a unified foundation ontology (Guizzardi's thesis). We can make models and test them to proof consistency. We have done a transformation to owl too. I think it can help you to create programs to use your ontology.
Bacharel em Sistemas de Informação - IFES
Mestrado em Informática - UFES
The BMM is a good start, but what I would want to see is a formal
ontology (i.e. some formal representation of concepts), and that
this ontology be grounded in referenced academic work.
I have some familiarity with the OMG's BMM but would like to look
at it more closely to see how well the concepts are grounded in
prior art such as legal theory and Searle's social constructs.
They may have done this, but technical standards are not always
known for referencing prior art, I'm sorry to say. Maybe BMM is an
exception to this.
Also I do think that concepts need to be abstracted to their most
general level for them to represent useful semantic building
blocks. So for example BMM defines "Goal" in a very
business-specific way, without defining a more abstract concept of
goal, of which the goal of a business would be one such. That's
the sort of thing that would emerge from a more ontological
treatment of the concepts that exist in BMM I think.
On 03/09/2013 23:57, Ray Martin wrote:
Mr. Bennett and all,
Would you consider BMM (Business Motivation Model) by OMG as
a starting point for the considerations of your paragraphs? Or
are you envisioning something entirely different?
It seems to me that for
ontologies that are relevant to businesses, there must be a
similar but separate grounding requirement, to that of a
child or other mammal.
If one can identify the first, early arm and leg movements
of the corporation, the rest would presumably follow from
there. This would be things like Searle's social constructs
(leading on into commitments, agreements, contracts,
transactions etc.), the basic concepts of double-entry
book-keeping (profit, loss, asset, liability), and so on.
This would form the basic vocabulary, the basic geometry if
you will, from which other more complex concepts are
derived, and which are relevant in perceivign the semantics
of things within the business's environment (buildings,
shipping, payment systems etc.).
On 03/09/2013 13:40, Sandro Rama Fiorini wrote:
Linda Smith's work in developmental psychology is quite
interesting to ontologists. Her research in the
development of whole/part recognition in children is
This study is one of many that show how the semantics of natural
language is grounded in the neural mechanisms of perception and action.
Isn't that what the symbol grounding problem is all about?
When I try to use ontologies to do something useful in a
computer a frequently have to overcome the problem of
converting data patterns into symbols and symbols into
actions. There is still relatively little research in how to
bridge this semantic gap, if you considering how important
Sandro Rama Fiorini
Institute of Informatics
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)