ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] [Ontology Application Framework] Revised Strawman

To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:11:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-id: <735066.31429.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Jack,

It is the owner;s decision.   Business;s and organization does not even have to use technology.  Even usage of technology is a choice.  

One can use a note pad and a pen to write.  Don't even need a computer .

As I said,  business owner do have a choice, what they want for thier own business.   

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, 4:51 PM

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/


-----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/     (01)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>