| Pavithra, I agree that one has to separate management, technology/ information modeling issue. Now please separate the presumption of CIO responsible for ALL the information and notice that management is responsible for knowledge exchange and what knowledge is exchanged. CIO is responsible for mechanizing an exchange. Jack
On Mar 7, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Pavithra wrote: Jack,
Ontologies provide information modeling ability for the environment. And CIO - Chief information officer is responsible for all the " information " about the business and organization . Context sensitive information has to deal with local context vs global ( general) context. Contextual information modeling would address that.
Any power struggle between bla bla bla ( what you said, not that I understand what you said, but I am trying to answer it) is a management issue and not a technology / information modeling issues.
One has to separate management, technology/ information modeling issues.
..
Pavithra
--- On Mon, 3/7/11, Jack Ring <jring7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Jack Ring <jring7@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [Ontology Application Framework] Revised Strawman Proposal
To: "Ontology Summit 2011 discussion" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 12:24 PM
Pavithra, Works in the Voluntary Adult Detention Facilities where most people go to work but doest work too well when two or more such monarchies attempt to form a supply chain. In fact, cannot ontologies be made that resolve local meanings based on local contexts? Jack Ring On Mar 7, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Pavithra wrote: Anders,
The concept of enterprise architecture is to understand the enterprise in a
holistic manner and recommend technology usage to help the businesses perform better.
For example, if you are managing a taxi cab business, using the best GPS system ( with indication of road and traffic condidtions and alternate route etc, audio and graphic support ) would help to get to your destination in a more efficient way.
Now if there are two roads or destinations with the same name, or same destination with two different names, that can cause confusion and user may be prompted about such things and may need manual input choose one of the other.
The CIO need to work with Business / Stake holders / Subject matter expertise and provide best advice regarding technology usage and any
ambiguity with usage of terminologies and provide pros and cons of what such confusion can lead to. In the above example, if two different destinations have the same name, your GPS system can take you to a totally different destination than you wanted to reach.
But roads and destination names are nation wide, and general public only have so much of control and adds major complexity. However within the scope of a business, the business owner has the authority to change the name, or use a unique naming convention. A CIO should be bestowed with the powers to request such unique names. It is a feasible request. An educated business owner should respect and oblige. That would resolve the business wide dual name problem. This is the whole story of CIO power and Ontology in a nutshell.
These are small powers, but they resolve big issues
sometimes..
Regards,
Pavithra
Hope
--- On Mon, 3/7/11, Anders Tell <opensource@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Anders Tell <opensource@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [Ontology Application Framework] Revised Strawman Proposal
To: "Ontology Summit 2011 discussion" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 6:36 AM
On Mar 1, 2011, at 11:46 PM, Pavithra wrote: 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. |
This is a interesting and valid account of large scale problems, but Im not sure about the part where the IT org / CIO organisation should be bestowed with powers.
It is not clear that IT people are the best people to steer and guide "business" people in their work, id rather prefers that the business people learn the value of using ontologies in their work. Not an easy task!
Unfortunately it is rather common that "IT" push their view (such as EA) into "business", without them understanding the value and accepting the use.
/anders w. tell
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
|
_________________________________________________________________
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/
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
|
_________________________________________________________________
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/
|
