Triage on Engineering Tracks 1 & 2 (01)
The mission statement for tracks 1 and 2 is within the engineering domain is
to bring key challenges to light with large-scale systems and systems of
systems for ontology and identify where solutions exist, where the problems
require significant research, and where we can work towards solutions as part
of this summit. A number of areas are identified in the mission statement.
From this list a smaller list of threads has emerged in the dialog. (02)
The next step to achieving the mission goal is to triage the list of threads
emerging from the mission statement. The emerging list has been constructed by
examining the email and chat dialog. The purpose of the triage is to produce a
more manageable for which there is the interest and opportunity to make useful
progress within the timescale of the ontology summit. In some cases the
progress may be only to identify solutions which already are available. In
other cases significant research may be needed, but within the Summit context
we can at least identify the research and a plan forward. There will of course
a number of other topics which would be relevant to this track, but to pursue
them would dissipate our resources. (03)
The following list is the current candidate list of threads. I ask you to weigh
in on whether the list should be changed, dropped, reformulated, or added to. (04)
Composite System Modeling: There has been a lot of discussion regarding
concepts needed to describe engineered and other systems regarding Including
parts, components, roles, qua-objects, functions, part replacement and virtual
individuals. Engineers are not the only ones interested in this, but presently
it is recognized as critical in engineering. Use cases would be easy to obtain.
Some have already been mentioned. While there is an enormous literature from
ontologists a triaged list of references suitable for engineers would be very
useful. We could also identify issues, based on engineering examples, where we
can achieve something beyond literature (05)
System Descriptions for Different Uses, e.g., Requirements & Design: There has
been discussion of different forms of conceptual models based on their use,
particularly in Anatoly’s presentation and his references, i.e., (Conrad
Bock). This Is also a very topical issue with engineers as they need better
methods of translating or relating these different models. There is lot of
current system engineering discussion concerning formalizing requirements so
they can be embedded as models (ontologies) within engineering languages and in
refining requirements models to design models.
Success and Relevance of Semantic Issues In Engineering: This topic was
introduced by John Sowa among others. There has been push back on this topic
on the grounds that it was covered last year. However, marketing ontology is
not the same as establishing where there are successes and analysis of
failures, and conditions that might drive success. Steve and Amanda are
addressing this in a cross track, but there is need to relate this particularly
for engineers. The topic is of great concern to engineering decision makers and
any insight on this would help. (06)
Ontology for engineered systems which uses ontologies and semantic methods: It
has been noted that existing engineered systems already use ontologies in the
pursuit of objectives. This seems a perfect place to apply upper level
ontological concepts of plans, actions, and such concepts. Use cases are not
too hard to come by. Elisa introduced examples. Military systems offer a rich
collection of use cases. Autonomous systems are likely already being given
rules of engagement in the same way that soldiers are given them. The rules
specify circumstances in which it is ok or not ok to kill someone, or mandatory
that someone be killed. Clearly these situations also have legal and moral
implications. There are more prosaic examples as well such as systems using
ontologies to monitor their health and safety and make decisions of whether to
abort a mission. (07)
Semantic Interoperability: Semantic interoperability crosses many tracks, but
has specific relevance for engineering. Many current engineering problems
result from this lack of semantic interoperability. We have seen some
suggestions such as Giancarlo posing ontologies as reference models of
consensus to provide bridges, Leo posing hierarchies of ontologies for semantic
integration. It would be good to have more specifics e.g., how to deal with
different levels of abstraction, different terminology and different axioms
sets. Triaged literature relevant to solutions, not the problem would help. (08)
Please feel free edit, comment, and most importantly sign up to champion a
track. (09)
- Henson (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (011)
|