> [PeterBrown] Given the theme for this year's Ontology Summit, it would
> seem that this would be an interesting test case (maybe taken together
> with the "SOA Reference Architecture Framework" that we are finalising
> in OASIS and which, partly under my influence, is straining to avoid the
> sort of modelling pitfalls referred to) about where, how, and why we need
> to make "the case for ontology" to an increasing number of communities,
> organisations that are looking at this discipline. (01)
[ppy] Good suggestion, Peter ... (02)
Allow me to forward this over to the [ontology-summit] list (with this
modified subject line, which I invite you to review and amend as you
deem fit), so that the OntologySummit2011 related conversation can
take place there. (03)
ALL ... Let's fork the discussion here -- I would suggest that we
should focus on the conversation (on the [ontology-summit] list) so
that it jives with this year's summit theme of "Making the Case for
Ontology," and leave the discussion on the SOA Ontology from the Open
Group behind in the [ontolog-forum] (where the conversation would be
more appropriately done, if people still want to talk about it.) (04)
[ as a reference, the original thread started with Ed Dodds' post at:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2010-12/msg00034.html ] (05)
Best. =ppy
-- (06)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Research <research@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: [New post] The Newest
from SOA: The SOA Ontology Technical Standard
To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (07)
Going back to the top of this thread for a moment:
- Todd states that the SOA Ontology from the Open Group "is rubbish for many
reasons" but that "there is some value in this work".
- I asked for some justification to the initial statement.
- a whole series of comments are posted regarding modelling errors and
shortcomings...
On the thread, we have followed a typical Ontolog Forum pattern of
spiralling away from the initial point and exploring fine modelling points -
all good in its own way, and a reflection of the breadth of opinion and
ideas of the group, which is great. (08)
I actually agree with Todd and many others that there are very serious
concerns about the methodology, the quality of the models, the
appropriateness of the UML and owl encapsulations of the Open group
ontology, and much more. That still doesn't make the whole exercise
'rubbish'. 'Disappointing', 'v poorly modelled in owl', 'depressingly
typical modelling errors', yes. Rubbish, no. (09)
Given the theme for this year's Ontology Summit, it would seem that this
would be an interesting test case (maybe taken together with the "SOA
Reference Architecture Framework" that we are finalising in OASIS and which,
partly under my influence, is straining to avoid the sort of modelling
pitfalls referred to) about where, how, and why we need to make "the case
for ontology" to an increasing number of communities, enterprises and
organisations that are looking at this discipline. (010)
I want to go out on a limb here and defend those who want to use "ontology"
(in its widest sense) as a means of establishing a common foundation for
work within a particular group or community. Heather Kreger, in her blog
post announcing the Open Group SOA work stated:
"Ontologies are misunderstood - an Ontology is simply the definition of a
set of concepts and the relationships between them for a particular domain -
in this case, the domain is SOA. They don't HAVE to be used for reasoning.
or semantic Web"
I agree wholeheartedly thus far, except maybe for the word 'simply'. If we
accept a plurality of ontologies (I know, many don't), then the definition
of terms can be made for a specific domain - with all the opportunities and
dangers that also presents...
She then goes on,
"they are more than a simple glossary which defines terms, because they also
define relationships between them"
Still with her this far. 'Simple' UML models, a lot of rdf, xml schemas,
etc. often fall down here as there are often not expressions or syntax in
those languages that are rich enough to capture the complexity of multiple
relationships between concepts. I digress.
Heather continues:
"also important to note that they are more formal than Reference Models,
usually by providing representations in OWL (just in case you want to use
popular tools for Ontology and reasoners)."
It is the segue between the first statement and the second that worries me.
More than a reference model, good. Next step, full-on owl? Why?
I suspect it is also the reason that the Open Group SOA work fails in many
people's eyes. The leap of faith between 'we need something more formal than
a reference model' to 'we must use owl' - and the absence of in-house or
available skills to make that transition or propose alternative languages,
tools, methodologies and disciplines that are appropriate to the domain and
the problem at hand - would seem to be at the heart of many large-scale
ontology project failures. (011)
My gut feeling is that this is worth exploring in depth in the run up to the
F2F summit. (012)
Best regards,
Peter (013)
--------------------
Peter F Brown
Independent Consultant (014)
Transforming our Relationships with Information Technologies
www.peterfbrown.com
@pensivepeter
P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA
-------------------- (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (016)
|