Rich, I think you are missing my point, and by doing so, underscoring it! You seem to be making the very assumption that I am trying to alert people too, namely that business only access data bases and systems within an enterprise boundary – and for which the scope is implicitly that of concern to the enterprise. The problem is that businesses don’t operate only within themselves – they have business partners and suppliers and customers, each with their own systems and data bases and their own respective scopes. In addition, the business’s own scope doesn’t remain static. It may merge with other businesses, it may divest itself of some business units, and it may move into new markets and product lines. All these change the scope of the business and introduce either additions of new data bases (or at least tables) or divergence of existing data bases. Consider what happens when two companies merge, each with, say, a PeopleSoft based HR system. Even if we assume that the schema is identical for the two data bases, and if the position descriptions, benefits, pay periods, etc are identical (unlikely), we still have scope issues that prevent interoperability between the two data bases. There are probably overlaps in employee identifiers and conflicts in employee names. There may even be employees who exist in both company’s data bases. And depending on what the objective of specific queries are, one may need to query one data base or the other or both. Hans From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 11:35 AM
To: '[ontolog-forum] ' <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'Thomas Johnston' <tmj44p@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Prospects made into Customers and Vice Versa Hans, One of the differences between the military intelligence world. as compared to the business world, is that intersystem connections and functions are fairly interoperable. The military has so much money to spend on intelligence that the very best designs, no matter how high the cost in labor or equipment, are justified by the extreme risk that the military takes. So yes, the scope of each military project is thought out down to the seams, toilet cover, and coffee pot. The Scope is what the military calls the project elements. Businesses are far less methodical about their IT stuff. Business is far more financially efficient in terms of resource usage because very few businesses have to worry about losing customers or employees to violent acts. But 80% of new businesses fail, and get wiped off the Earth, all without hurting anyone in any physical way - just losing all their money. So yes, with a very large budget, or in the future with really good technology tool ware, businesses might adopt the military methods as well. But for now, the military is the best example of organizing software development and deployment using the SCOPE plans. Sincerely, Rich Cooper, Rich Cooper, Chief Technology Officer, MetaSemantics Corporation MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com ( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2 http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com Tom, Rich: This example isn’t just about aligning or comparing definitions of what a customer is or about data definitions for particular columns in the database schema. It’s also about the scope of these different databases and how those scopes relate to each other (e.g., are they disjoint or do they overlap – and, if so, to what degree or based on what attribute sets and associated value ranges), as well as how the scope of the set of databases being accessed relate to the overall intended scope of the query. One of the purposes of the NCOIC SCOPE model is to help people explore, enumerate, and understand these scope differences among data bases and systems, and develop any scope representations that will be used to resolve these questions in operational software. I’ll note that it is a rare database name that includes any scope parameter values at all, much less scope attributes and value sets that allow reasoning about the completeness of a set of databases for the intended purpose of the query. Hans I agree, Rich. So since so-called Customer tables will represent different collections of things, albeit all called customers, what are we to do when trying to compare different Customer tables from different databases? Give up? Appeal to Mirriam-Webster? I take it that the whole idea of a Semantic Web is that software can recognize in what respects similar tables are similar but not identical, or by virtue of what identical set of criteria identical tables are identical (whether or not their names are). If this can't be done by software, it has to be done by people, interpreting definitions written down in data dictionaries. Definitions, I will add, that in thirty years plus of IT database modeling and design in the world of commercial IT, I have never found to be anything more than vague glosses on a statement of the criteria that define those tables and that account for their similarities and differences. In this forum, I believe Pat Hayes to be the most informed expert on the Semantic Web that we have. Perhaps we need to hear from an expert like him, or others, rather than additional comments from an opinionated ersatz academic like myself. This is what we need a true Semantic Web for. We can't just look for tables in different databases that have the same name, to know we will be accessing tables that represent the same things. While that statement is true, the name of the table is not as important as its functionality, which is more a conceptual thing about who pays the DB users money, versus who gets paid by the DB users. When I talk to a developer of systems using different tools and equipment than I use, that developer will immediately know what I mean by the "Customer" table. So it's more about inflow, outflow and accumulations within categories. Two tables represent the "same things" if and only if (i) they share a universe of discourse, and (ii) they use identical set membership criteria to partition that universe of discourse into things that aren't represented in those tables and things that are. It's perhaps more philosophically correct to go that way. But in real situations (as you probably know), the software does what the software customer wants it to. It doesn't follow some one-size-fits-all conceptual structure, but it is custom tailored to the owner, the business, the products and services, financing, and all kinds of constraints like that. So a simple, consistent set of definitions would likely cause disaster in many applications. Chief Technology Officer, MetaSemantics Corporation MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com For naming database tables, what the English language says is irrelevant or, at best, nothing more than suggestive. The table Customer for division A is whatever division A says it is, and so too for division B. "Customer" is a name that each division gives to a table it has. If they wanted to call the table "XYZ", there is no reason why they can't. The table, and its set membership criteria, are one thing; the name given to it is something else. The tables -- the one for A and the one for B -- if they are relational tables, are sets. As sets, they have set membership criteria which say which, for all the possible persons who might be or become customers, what criteria they have to meet to become customers, and to remain customers. And as I said, across a couple of dozen clients, I have never found any two of them who had Customer tables with exactly the same set membership criteria. And, to look at it from the opposite end of things, suppose A and B did define their tables, in set membership terms, identically, but that A called its table a "Customer" table and B called its table an "Obligated Party" table. The different names wouldn't matter. The two tables would still be identical. This is an example of one of the important things ontologies can do. They can tell us when two identical names are homonyms and, conversely, when two different names are synonyms. If you are worried about the "customer" vs. "prospect" distinction in ordinary English, let me change the example. Let's say that for division A, someone stops being a customer if they haven't purchased anything in the last three years; but for division B, someone stops being a customer if they haven't purchased anything in the last two years. Surely no English dictionary would say that either or both of these rules created an "untruth". And note the most important point. These are differences which make a difference. Even though both tables are given the name "Customer", they mean different things. A SQL Count statement against the two tables, to decide which division had the most customers, could not provide an answer, because the statement will be counting different definitions of "customer". The statement will be counting apples and oranges. Reading up on dictionaries will not solve this problem. First, as I said, dictionaries are irrelevant. Secondly, no ordinary language dictionary would ever provide a definition accurate enough to tell us what rules have to be satisfied for somebody to be represented in any Customer table. This is what we need a true Semantic Web for. We can't just look for tables in different databases that have the same name, to know we will be accessing tables that represent the same things. Two tables represent the "same things" if and only if (i) they share a universe of discourse, and (ii) they use identical set membership criteria to partition that universe of discourse into things that aren't represented in those tables and things that are. I would like to recapitulate your example of the company that has two divisions A and B. B treats all prospects as customers while A distinguishes customers as those who have actually bought something in the past. The boss tells A division mgrs to up the customer count. So the A boss has the distinction changed so that people who have NEVER bought, but who are known by A, are now treated as customers just like the B division mgrs do it. While that change seems very normal and natural for a business to do that in trying to wrap its processes around the tax and risk constraints it has to deal with, it also seems like an untruth, since the English language says Prospects are not the same as Customers. How do you philosophers in the crowd deal with that kind of change of definition into something every business knows is just plain incorrect? Chief Technology Officer, MetaSemantics Corporation MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com |
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|