I don't mind OAF. I think paying too much attention to an acronym
detracts from what it stands for. As for value metrics, we had a
session on it that at least started on a way to relate qualitative
evaluations with numerical measurements. It's a long way from ready
for prime time, but perhaps we can stimulate more discussion when
Todd Schneider has a little more time to pitch in. For my part I
want to gather Use-Cases and compare what metrics, qualitative and
quantitative, were used, or perhaps note the lack of metrics or the
lack of specific criteria for qualitative subjective valuations. I
haven't had time to add the several remain Use-Cases I have, but
will get to it next week.
While we may criticize parts of it, it is good to have an Ontology
Application Framework to work with, so I applaud that.
On 3/2/11 11:01 AM, Michael F Uschold wrote:
OAF does have a negative connotation, albeit a
somewhat amusing one.
If OWL stands for Web Ontology Language, maybe we can use FOA
for Ontology Application Framework? Actually, I don't like that
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
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
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?
On 2/28/11 8:51 AM, Wisnosky, Dennis E OSD DCMO wrote:
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.