On Feb 15, 2014, at 1:40 PM, John McClure wrote:
If classes are
defined by the properties
they possess, can one not proceed along those lines? A
composed of terms, A Glossary is composed of definitions,
By no means am I saying that the Zachman Framework (which he now
labels an ontology) is the bees knees. There are plenty of such
frameworks—DoDAF, ToGAF, MoDAF—to choose from.
What I like about Zachman is its simplicity.
In the context of vocabularies... please to recognize you're
going to need 36 vocabularies, one for each cell. For certain
there will be overlaps & commonality, but the basic issue is
that the folks in mahogany row (Row 1) do not use the same
language the stokers do (Row 6).
A lot of this language will not be found in formal
Remember the situation from my 1980 example... 70 different
names for the core business concept "policy number." I'd be
willing to guess that with the tos & fros of business over
the past 30 years, that number has NOT gone down.
Obviously most of the time a worker primarily deals with the
language in their little box. But there's plenty of activity at
the edges of the cells too where language discrepancies need to
be resolved... often by trial & error.
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