Agreed - however I see little literature or case studies on the
integration of software systems for enterprises, ontology
development and Zachman frameworks though, intuitively, it's there
(implicitly in most enterprise work).
On 3/1/11 1:07 PM, Pavithra wrote:
Zachman in one of his presentation (2008) said that his
framework helps develop an Ontology of the Organization..
I think for all the practical purpose, at a minimum an
organization should have common ontology for all its core
and enabling ( administrating) business functions,
processes and services. So the systems that support
these functions, processes and services are
interoperable.
Generally people develop a list of Objects, or classes and
descriptions ( first row and first column of Zachman) and
cal them Ontology like in DBpedia, others do a centralized
data dictionary etc.. None of them are fully functional
from a interoperability perspective. A good discussion
of level detail for Ontology is necessary to support
interoperability..
Regards,
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, 11:28 AM
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.
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
|
--
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.
|
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (01)
|