Agreed, and I am very interested in results or ideas on
quantitative, or, even in looking at developing a quantitative
strawman or alternatives for valuation. I have been working on
something internally, also not yet ready for prime time but I am
intent on sharing that in a few months.
On 3/2/11 7:01 PM, Rex Brooks wrote:
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.
Cheers,
Rex
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 either.
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
-- 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.
-- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-898-0670
-- 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.