Re: [ontology-summit] [Ontology Application Framework] Revised Strawman

[Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>]

>The differences in the points of view and the questions addressed
>show why it is so difficult to get anybody to agree on a common
>ontology.  Even when they use the same terminology as a basis,
>they are going to have different ways of defining each term.
>That is why you need to think of a framework (or as I represent
>it, a lattice) -- not a single, fixed set of definitions.

Thank you for your notes.  That is a souvenir

I am not debating about Lattice approach.  However,  I believe not everything needs theoretical solutions.   Some can be resolved with practical approach and policies.   

 

One of the approaches that is in practice  is to identify the key members and stake holders, subject matter expertise of the organizations and request their time and commitment to help with the Ontology development and set the expectations right with them before developing the Ontology or EA.  One can get consensus on terminologies and concepts and make policies to have  the rest of the organization follows it through.   But it is difficult to facilitate such an influence if an enterprise architect is treated as a subcontractor or technical member of the team to make  that change at the top level.  Enterprise Architects and CIOs have to have access to Planners and Owners of the organization and key member to take that route and develop common terminologies and models and use polices to influence the rest of the organization. In other words, CIO organization has to be bestowed with that kind of power to make it happen.   It is a matter of organization change management.  

 

Organization hierarchy, middle management can be show stopper and can cause road blocks with this approach. If one is treated as just another technical member of the team, one may not be able to develop that level of communication to be effective.     Not many technology people have that kind of organization influence in another organization (unless they are Steve Jobs or John Sowa or  Ed Yourdon or someone or any one of you , the accredited scientists in this group. ).. , But effective EA teams have to establish such organization astuteness and power to CIO group  before they start the projects.   

 

Regards,

Pavithra

--- On Tue, 3/1/11, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [Ontology Application Framework] Revised Strawman Proposal
To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 1:51 PM

On 3/1/2011 1:07 PM, Pavithra wrote:
> Zachman in one of his presentation (2008) said that his framework
> helps develop an Ontology of the Organization..

I happen to agree with that point, but I would emphasize that Zachman
had a lot of practical experience in project design and development,
but he did not have any formal background in logic and related topics.

Back in 1992, John Z and I were both working at IBM, and I liked
his framework for its emphasis on the multiple views of the same
system.  (Originally 15 views, but later 30 views).  Each of
those views could be defined in a different microtheory from
a different point of view and granularity.

Following is the joint paper that we published in the IBM
Systems Journal:

    http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/sowazach.pdf

> Generally people develop a list of Objects, or classes and descriptions
> (first row and first column of Zachman) and call them Ontology like
> in DBpedia, others do a centralized data dictionary etc..  None of them
> are fully functional from a interoperability perspective.

Zachman's original framework (1987) had only 3 columns.  I observed
that they represented answers to the questions What? How? and Where?

I noted that Aristotle used the question words in Greek as the names
of his fundamental categories.  John Z. had been thinking of adding
more columns to the framework, so I suggested that he use the six
basic question words of English as a guide.  That led to three more
columns for Who? When? and Why?

You can think of the 30 boxes of the framework as answers to those
six basic questions from the perspectives of five different people:
Planner, Owner, Designer, Builder, and  Subcontractor.

The differences in the points of view and the questions addressed
show why it is so difficult to get anybody to agree on a common
ontology.  Even when they use the same terminology as a basis,
they are going to have different ways of defining each term.
That is why you need to think of a framework (or as I represent
it, a lattice) -- not a single, fixed set of definitions.

John

_________________________________________________________________
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/     (01)