Matthew,
I partially agree with your position on good quality modeling providing many
advantages for data federation. For example, we currently have a large
financial client who has the typical multi-way data integration problem. We
gave them a choice of using UML+MDA or Ontologies for producing the "canonical
model" they wanted as the logical pivot point between data structures. They
chose UML and it is going quite well, we can produce a nice conceptual model
that can be mapped to various applications. The canonical model is not a "data
model", it is a model if their domain. It is proven that this kind of model
can be mapped to a lot of technologies, at least if you have good people doing
it. {ok, end of my advertisement} (01)
But, they have a lot of control and are essentially the only authority for this
conceptual model. Within their domain they can come to agreement on what
information is relevant for their set of applications. However even with this,
the mapping of the canonical model to technologies requires proprietary data
mapping tooling and infrastructure. Where there are independently conceived
representations of the same or related things or there are different viewpoints
with different ways to structure the same information, the well-conceived
structural model we can do in UML does not work as well. Where we have to start
relating these different ways to conceive or structure information the
relations we can define in ontologies show their advantage. Personally I don't
think we need very sophisticated ontologies, but we need more than lines with
tag names on the end. (02)
Where we are addressing the data federation and sharing problem we almost
always are starting from these independently conceived models and multiple
viewpoints, so I would stick by my assertion that leveraging ontologies
provides additional benefit. (03)
-Cory (04)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew West
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 3:40 AM
To: 'Ontology Summit 2011 discussion'
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Boiling it down to a Elevator Pitch (oreven a
Sound Bite) [was - Fwd: Ontology Summit 2011:Communique draft review session -
Thu 2011.04.07] (05)
Dear Cory, (06)
A comment or two below. (07)
> The data sharing and federation problem (Cory Casanave, Model Driven
> Solutions):
>
> Our ability to share, manage, analyze, communicate and act upon
information is
> at the foundation of the modern enterprise. Information sharing is
essential
> for enterprise supply chains, fighting terrorism and integrating
enterprise
> applications. Yet, this essential capability has remained difficult in
> information systems which are frequently isolated, stove piped and
difficult
> to integrate. The inability of our systems to share information
> hampers
the
> ability of our organizations to collaborate - for our processes,
> services
and
> information resources to work together. Some estimate that more than
> 1/3
of
> our information technology budgets are consumed overcoming this
> "semantic friction" in our systems and that the costs to society from
> our failure to share and collaborate is many times the systems overhead.
>
> Mainstream tools for information and data modeling are effective at
defining a
> particular data model for a particular application in a particular
technology
> to solve a particular problem. But they suffer when applied to
> multiple applications for multiple purposes over multiple technologies
> to deal with unanticipated needs and opportunities. (08)
MW: This is not true. The tools are quite neutral, and you can do pretty much
anything you can do with OWL with pretty much any data modelling tool. (09)
MW: What is true is that the data models developed for particular applications
are usually designed to support the processing specific to that application (to
improve application performance) and as a result of that they are not simply
subsets of some corporate data model, and you cannot create a corporate data
model by just adding together the separate application data models. (010)
> Most mainstream modeling techniques
> are challenged when faced with federating independently conceived models. (011)
MW: Can't resist a plug here. Try "Developing high Quality Data Models". (012)
Regards (013)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (014)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England and
Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (015)
>
> The semantic technologies can serve to define and connect the meaning
> of
data,
> processes and services rather than just the structure, these
> technologies offer the potential of making a substantial contribution
> to solving the
"data
> problem". This is not just theory, there are multiple proof points
> where semantic technologies are providing real solutions today, yet
> there is
still
> substantial opportunity to develop and leverage these technologies
further.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontology-summit- bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter
> Yim
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 1:33 PM
> To: Ali Hashemi; Ontology Summit 2011
> Subject: [ontology-summit] Boiling it down to a Elevator Pitch (or
> even a Sound Bite) [was - Fwd: Ontology Summit 2011: Communique draft
> review
session
> - Thu 2011.04.07]
>
> Ali and All,
>
> Given this input, and the useful dialog around it that we had during
> the
(Apr-
> 7) Communique draft review session - ref.
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_04_07#nid2
> RUR ... and the conversation below that - can I interest you to roll
> that up
into
> an "elevator pitch" and post that input to:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_MakingTheCase_CommunityInput#nid2NFS
>
> I extend this solicitation again to everyone who has been refining (or
helping
> the community refine) his/her message about "the case for Ontology",
> we
will
> be pointing people to those inputs ... so, please please send them in
> NOW (before the end of day Friday)!
>
> ... feel free to send those Elevator Pitches and Sound Bites in, ASAP,
through
> the online survey form, post it to the wiki, or even email them to me
> (if
you
> want me to post them to the wiki for you.) - see:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011_MakingTheCase_CommunityInput#nid2NFS
>
> Thanks & regards. =ppy
> --
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ali Hashemi <ali@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit 2011: Communique draft
review
> session - Thu 2011.04.07.
> To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Some comments about the take aways that Michael Uschold mentioned
> (bullet points 1-7 & also 1-5a-b on the draft Communiqué).
> Familiar Friend
>
> I would like to propose an integral take away that might not be as
immediately
> concrete as those specified there, but would nonetheless play an
> important role in the decision making process.
>
> Specifically, I would want a reader to come away with the feeling that
> an ontology "fits". It's not a new, foreign, idea that one would have
> to
expend a
> lot of energy to integrate to a particular socio-technical system, but
> a natural outgrowth of whatever it was you were already doing.
>
> Sort of like "We've been doing ontology all along, but I never knew it".
>
> ===
>
> Ontological Analysis vs Artifact
>
> I would also like to suggest a clearer delineation between an ontology
> artefact and the methodology and process of ontological analysis. I
> think there is market just for the latter, even if it doesn't
> necessarily result
in
> a formal, computational ontology.
>
> Namely, given the current state of adoption and most importantly,
> comprehension in industry of ontology, it might not be possible to
demonstrate
> how an ontology artifact would necessarily lead to immediate benefits.
Indeed,
> as was pointed out in the just-completed telecon, it is very difficult
> to consistently come up with a set of generic value metrics to judge
> the
success
> of a program. And half the problem is in understanding the problem
> domain anyway. If a company is unfamiliar with ontology, would they
> even be able
to
> articulate their problem clearly and map it to such metrics?
>
> Alternatively, it should be possible how ontological analysis of the
business
> (organization) domain (process / subdomain / problem) can help the
business:
>
> increase self-awareness
> identify possible ways that an ontology artifact(s) can deliver value
develop
> a road map for a long term plan of incrementally deploying semantic
> technologies
>
> Yes, these are notoriously difficult ROI cases, that have to be
> tailored
to
> each particular context. But they are necessary stepping stones /
landmarks in
> any strategy.
>
> To summarize and rephrase:
>
> An additional key take away might be that - even if I am a business
> that
has
> no clear/concrete idea of how ontology might help me out (especially
> as a particular type of technology solution -- should i go with OWL? a
> data dictionary? a full-on ontology? what level of reasoning do I
> really need,
if
> at all?), I should at least come away feeling that ontological
> analysis is absolutely necessary for any possible solution. It is an
> essential
component
> of my ability as a manager or decision maker in my company to make an
informed
> choice as to how to go forward. And without such work, I might not
> know
enough
> about my problem domain from an ontology perspective to be able to
> intelligently pick and choose the most relevant use caes.
>
> The result of simply engaging an ontology-based analysis might then
suggest to
> start with a simple vocabulary or terminology, or to simply enhance
> key components of a db here, or a best practices there. It would come
> up with
the
> value metrics itself. That is to say, no immediate full scale
> commitment
to
> any particular ontology artifact, but a commitment to ontological
> analysis
and
> modeling. This is a far less expensive endeavor, and already sets the
pre-sale
> for the next one (if applicable).
> Is this (un)clear?
>
> Cheers,
> Ali
> --
> www.reseed.ca
> www.pinkarmy.org
>
> (*`'·.¸(`'·.¸(*)¸.·'´)¸.·'´*) .,.,
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/ (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (017)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (018)
|