| I submit that the focus on ontology obfuscates the necessity and benefits of treating an enterprise as a system, particularly an intelligently autonomous system. This entails performing system Identification, Design/Architecting, Engineering/Constructing, Adoption/Assay/Adaptation, and Learning, IDEAL, on an existing or envisioned enterprise. With this, ontology manifests as one facet of the infrastructure that is on aspect of the architecture. Lacking this, ontology becomes a new paint job on an old car and begins to crack and peel after only a few weeks of spending the money on it because the existing surface was not properly prepared. Jack Ring On Mar 1, 2011, at 9:28 AM, Arun wrote:
Hi,
Agreed - in fact any business can be ontologically decomposed into
functional business units and these in turn into the infrastructure
components (including humans) that enable the business units to
inter-operate. On the other hand, I would like to see more
quantitative approaches integrated with the qualitative approach
because I like to put numbers to things so I can get a clearer
understand what "value" really means.
For example, on what aspects of ontology (or its dimensions) should
we prioritize effort? How do we evaluate where we get the most
value, the greatest return on investment in the short term relative
to the long term. I realize everyone likes the long term benefits
that ontologies promise, however, many business managers would be
hard pressed in these economic times to spend money on the far
future as opposed to the near term tangible and concrete bottom
line.
So my hope is to stimulate discussion about what other models (and I
suggest AHP) might be combined with the ontology framework that is
meaningful to a high-level, non-scientific, business savvy decision
maker: that kind of decision maker is a lot like an investor - they
have a portfolio of options, one of which is more money in the thing
called "ontology" or more money into some other "thing". Where's
the compelling case for the return on investment. I believe that
for any case to be compelling, it *must* be quantitatively presented
in the hard-bottom line terms that business experts understand.
Hope this is useful food for thought.
Thanks,
Arun
On 3/1/11 11:12 AM, Jack Ring wrote:
I suggest that an ontology is a key aspect of the
enterprise infrastructure. If architecture is "The arrangement of
function and feature that maximizes an objective" then
infrastructure are the functions and features that are factored
out because they support all the others. Generally, infrastructure
provides for commonality of location/dimension, support, access,
access control, and services. Ontology enables human knowledge
exchange and choice making. An EA Framework is one facet of an
enterprise ontology, presuming, of course, that an ontology can
refer to 'itself.'
On Mar 1, 2011, at 8:26 AM, Pavithra wrote:
Hi Arun,
I believe it is possible to incorporate Ontology
as an artifact or
work product to an exiting Enterprise Architecture
framework and road map..
I call it Semantic Enterprise Architecture. The
assessment or the
checklist to find out the readiness would be
another artifact or work product
in the road map as well.. We had some
presentations on Semantic
Enterprise Architecture tools in the past sessions
in this forum.
OAF can be refined to include more specific
information about Ontology. Or renamed if the
other people agree.
At present, some organizations have a centralized
Data Dictionary or
terminology and descriptions, but there is no
consistent understanding of what comprises
‰Ontology" for the organization.
Hope that helps,
Pavithra
--- On Tue, 3/1/11, Arun <arun@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From: Arun <arun@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [Ontology
Application Framework] Revised Strawman Proposal
To: "Ontology Summit 2011 discussion" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 8:28 AM
Hi,
The Ontology Application Framework (OAF) reminds
of the Technology Readiness Level (NASA's TRL's)
that one could use with another tool, like an
Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP) to identify
an ontology dependency and development strategy
for the larger enterprise: for example, knowing
what you have, what you don't have, and
therefore, what you need to have, would a kind
of "inventory" mechanism that a document along
the lines of this one might provide. As an
industry developer with clients in the public
and private sector spaces, I tend to do this
similar kind of road-map work almost
semi-automatically for any new job because I
always need some kind of inventory that serves
the purpose of seeing the client road map and
what the barriers to success might be.
While the OAF document uses words like "value
metrics" it does not indicate what methodology
is used whereby qualitative and often subject
judgments are input and objective numerical
evaluations as outputs (aka value metrics) are
used. My preference is AHP and other portfolio
valuation methods.
The OAF might be the seed for someone to take it
further and a create a kind of Zachman *style*
framework or model which becomes a tool for
rapid assessment in strategic road map
development, and therefore, critical and
quantitative budgeting, for the renovation of
legacy enterprises and/or legacy with new
technology integration paths that are
productivity and cost optimal.
I don't like the acronym "OAF" since it sounds
like the dictionary word "oaf" ( according to
Merriam-Webster, a big clumsy slow witted
person). Even though my point seems trite,
some critical managers might find that acronym
disconcerting. And we need all the help we can
get.
Perhaps a name along the lines of Road-mapping
Ontology Model (ROM) which corresponds also with
a popular acronym for Rough Order of Magnitude
might be useful.
Or perhaps I am just missing the point entirely?
Thanks,
Arun Majumdar
On 2/28/11 8:51 AM, Wisnosky, Dennis E OSD DCMO
wrote:
And, its purpose?
Dennis E. Wisnosky
Department of Defense
Business Mission Area
Chief Architect and Chief Technical Officer
703-607-3440
C630-240-6910
-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Gruninger
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 4:29 PM
To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ontology-summit] [Ontology Application Framework] Revised Strawman Proposal
Attached is a revision of the Ontology Application Framework that was originally presented at the Feb 3 telecon.
- michael
_________________________________________________________________
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/
--
WARNING: THIS EMAIL IS COVERED BY THE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 2510-2521 AND IS LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS MESSAGE AND THE ATTACHMENT, IF ANY, IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW.
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
|
_________________________________________________________________
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/
_________________________________________________________________
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/
--
WARNING: THIS EMAIL IS COVERED BY THE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 2510-2521 AND IS LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS MESSAGE AND THE ATTACHMENT, IF ANY, IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW.
|