I like the distinction below, as it further characterizes the two perspectives
Any suggestion as to which one do we start from, and what do we aim for? Meaning, do we start from things as they are, to end up with what they should be, or viceversa? I suppose the answer depends on what one intends to achieve, and also maybe, some philosophical stance one has
PDM
On 4/24/07, Andreas Tolk <atolk@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Helping my scholar - hopefully - with an additional aspect:
Descriptive deals with "AS-IS ontology," mainly driven by systems,
components, and interface. They describe what can be done with the current
state-of-the-art solutions. If data models only have a limited set of
properties and propertied concepts that are related, they can only store
and reproduce a special part of the world. The describe the purposeful
abstraction of reality and in some cases may even describe its
implementation. They represent the bottom-up part.
Prescriptive deals with "SHOULD-BE ontology," in which the ideal - often
doctrinal - final state is described. It describes a solution that is the
new standard for a community of interest, what should be implemented by
systems supporting this domain of interest. They represent the top-down
part.
Ideal would be if SHOULD-BE ontology and AS-IS ontology merge into a domain
ontology for a community of interest, but two challenges are in the way:
(a) SHOULD-BE ontology tends to increase with time, as new aspects are
identified and have to be included. The work is never quite done, making it
a "moving target."
(b) AS-IS ontology describes legacy systems, which often cannot be changed
with practical constraints. While we can identify gaps, we often have to
live with this gaps, but at least we are aware of them and take counter
measures.
Hope this supports some discussions.
Greetings from far away, all the best
Andreas
============================== ;-)
Andreas Tolk, Ph.D.
Associate Professor/Engineering Management & Systems Engineering
242B Kaufman Hall
Old Dominion University
Norfolk, VA 23529
ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 04/24/2007 10:47:26 AM:
> There seems to be a bit of confusion as to this dimension here at
> the summit. As the originator of this idea in the email discussion
> group, here is a view as to how it can be interpreted.
>
> The difference between Descriptive and Prescriptive is (as some have
> pointed out) related to Intended Use and Design Methodology, but in
> both cases is not the same thing. The difference can be seen in a
> simple way, and it has to do with how and why the Ontological
> Representation being evaluated was crafted.
>
> If the basis for the decisions of the Ontology were based on a
> number of existing documents and systems, and the implied ontology
> within those artifacts, then it is a Descriptive Ontology. It
> takes, as the source of its epistemological validity, the body of
> artifacts it is based on.
>
> If the basis for the decisions of the Ontology is instead predicated
> on the best possible current understanding of the referent material
> that the Ontology deals with, then it is Prescriptive in nature.
> Note that a Prescriptive ontology would be formed with a priori
> knowledge (as much as possible) of the body of referents, and not
> based on whatever abstraction of that knowledge is captured in
> existing systems, models, etc. In this case, the source for
> epistemological validity is the body of referents.
>
> I hope this helps. If not, I am ready to be given a cigarette and
> blindfold...
>
> Chuck
> Charles Turnitsa
> Project Scientist
> Virginia Modeling, Analysis & Simulation Center
> Old Dominion University Research Foundation
> (757) 638-6315 (voice)
> cturnits@xxxxxxx
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2007/
> Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007
> Community Portal:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:
ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2007/
Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
--
Paola Di Maio****
Lecturer and Researcher
School of Information Technology
Mae Fah Luang University
Chiang Rai
Thailand
*********************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2007/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2007
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (01)
|