I just looked over the slides from the value metrics session
that I missed.
I'm trying to see how this work dovetails with the ontology
application framework (OAF
I created a class in OAF called "Benefit" for things like:
ReducedMaintenanceEffort, MoreReuse, AgilityFlexibility, etc.
I also want to track how and where these benefits arise,
ultimately back to the ontology. Benefits can lead to other
benefits, and technologies/techniques/approaches can lead to
benefits. My first stab at this is illustrated here: benefits
and techniques network
. I created a link called
"facilitates" that captuers the idea of one technology or
benefit can lead to another benefit. I only have included a
few, there are many more.
It is also true that some things that are benefits from one
perspective, are just techniques from another perspective. If
you are a software engineer, MoreReuse may sound like a
benefit. If you are a CEO, you don't care about reuse, unless
it leads to reduces costs or more functionality in the
products. So to the CEO, MoreReuse is a technique, not a
I also did not include value metrics, which as the
presentations point out, are linked to benefits. E.g.
increased agility is a benefit. A metric might be: system
development time. For example an ontology-based
system was developed in 3 months, when from past experience,
it was known that it would take at least 6 months to develop
this using conventional approaches.
You might call the relationship between ValueMetrics and
PROPOSAL to the Value Metrics Team: If you feel so
inclined, I think it would be a great contribution to the
overall cause by continuing in this vein, adding further
benefits and technologies, and linking them together, as well
as adding value metrics and linking them to benefits.
Michael Uschold, PhD
Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts