Well said, Jack! ... "enterprise as an intelligent system!" (01)
Now, if I may interest you in paraphrasing that into an "elevator
pitch" or even a "sound bite" or two ... that will *really* be
helpful! ... see:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_MakingTheCase_CommunityInput#nid2NFS (02)
Feel free you provide them right onto the wiki, to the online form, or
send them back to this mailing list (if you do the latter, I will make
sure that gets posted to the wiki.) (03)
Thanks & regards. =ppy
-- (04)
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Jack Ring <jring7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Quite so.
> That's why helping them understand their enterprise as a system, hopefully an
>intelligent system, gives them the perspective to grok the strange
>distinctions that ontologists need to make.
> This starts with a little semantic modeling; then activity modeling of the
>problematic situation (customers, markets, competitors, etc., and Their
> customers, markets, competitors, etc.,); then formulating an intervention
>strategy for serving unmet, even unrecognized, market needs better than can
>competitors and rivals; then design/architecture of To Be enterprise; then
> teasing out the infrastructure and modularization. All this must precede the
>development on ontology (because ontology is a major facet of infrastructure).
>
> Ways of accomplishing intelligent enterprise systems architecting and
>engineering are being evovled.
>
> Unfortunately the NOISE created by Business Process Management, Knowledge
>Management, Business Rules management, Enterprise Architecture Frameworks (for
>paint-by-numbers, i.e., ignorant, enterprises), etc., is precluding rapid
>development of this capability.
>
> Meanwhile, there are already places that have recognized the need for
>intelligent infrastructure. These are the current market targets for ontology
>insertion. In general, it is any enterprise or market wherein He Who Learns
>Fastest Wins. Specific examples are Military Intelligence, Business
>Intelligence, Conference Management (evolving to social network interlocutor),
>Learning Management (as modern education of youth is finally freed from
>government intervention), and Autonomous System engagement management.
>Personalized, Molecular-level medicine may become the Killer App.
>
> Make sense? (05)
> On Mar 2, 2011, at 10:10 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:
>
>> Jack and Mike,
>>
>> I agree with that point, but I'd like to add some qualifications:
>>
>> JR
>>> The primary purpose of a semantic model is to facilitate knowledge
>>> exchange and choice making in a gaggle of humans in hopes of
>>> morphing the gaggle into a system. A key usage is to inform the
>>> development of an executable ontology, e.g., application software,
>>> for automation of information flow and decision. Another key purpose
>>> is to provide a basis for objective assessment of enterprise
>>> situation (aka evidence-based management).
>>
>> MU
>>> Yes, this is the kind of thing I'm after.
>>
>> The primary qualification is that the "gaggle of humans" can only
>> agree on what they understand. The people who work in a field
>> can all agree that a list of familiar words, as documented in
>> their familiar texts, cover their familiar subject matter.
>>
>> But when ontologists start to axiomatize those terms in some
>> arcane notation based on some arcane distinctions about
>> endurants, perdurants, continuants, etc., all bets are off.
>>
>> John (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (07)
|