[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Summit 2013

To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Gary Berg-Cross <gbergcross@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 15:18:58 -0500
Message-id: <CAMhe4f0LzE7ruFsaZfeB_0xmNUi9=8tMV+-k-VSAm08yf_B7FQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I would note in passing that I believe that this relation of ontology ifecycle lto architectures and their lifecycle was touched on at times as part of last year's discussion of Ontology for Big Systems."  Some of the early discussion on systems seems relevant:

The areas from the session included:    (337S)
  • working with and integrating the results of models using multiple modeling languages,    (337T)
  • the systems lifecycle and the issues of sharing data within and between lifecycle stages,    (337U)
  • the difference between requirements and the delivered system,    (337V)
  • systems of systems vs systems,    (337W)
  • the nature of system components and the difference between these and the parts installed,    (337X)
  • the connections between system components and what they carry,    (337Y)
  • the specific role of social, legal, and value-related aspects in systems architecture, modeling and design    (339G)
  • systems behaviour,    (337Z)
  • federated systems both as a big system, and as a solution to some of the challenges,    (3380)
  • principles of how to construct good quality reusable models (ontologies),    (3381)
  • the management of ontologies of and for large systems and the challenges in developing and maintaining them.    (3382)

see also: OntologySummit2012_BigSystemsEngineering_CommunityInput

(Cross-Track-A2) Ontology for Federation and Integration of Systems    (36KC)OntologySummit2012_SystemsFederationIntegration_Synthesis ( CoryCasanave & AnatolyLevenchuk) might be relevant.

Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.  
SOCoP Executive Secretary
Knowledge Strategies    
Potomac, MD

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/6/2012 11:47 PM, Michael Gruninger wrote:
> "Ontology Evaluation Across the Ontology Lifecycle"

That's an important topic.  But the lifecycle of an ontology is
co-extensive with the lifecycle of any application or system that
uses or is based on that ontology.

This morning, I sent replies to two email lists that most people
on this list subscribe to.

  1. To Nancy W. on IAOA, I made the point that you can't separate
     the ontology of a system from its architecture or design.

  2. To Rich C. on Ontolog Forum:  "Imagine an IT department that had
     one group doing the architecture, a second group doing the design,
     a third group doing the ontology, and a fourth group doing the

Amanda responded,
> Sadly, John, some of us don't have to imagine this; we can remember it!

I would relate that point to evaluation:  a critical issue in a good
ontology is its accuracy in reflecting the design and/or architecture
of the system.

There are aspects and modules that could be distinguished.  For
example, the complete ontology of a system might combine multiple
modules or microtheories.  But the complete ontology of a system
and its complete architecture must be closely coordinated.

Any evaluation of an ontology must address these issues.



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/OntologySummit2013/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013  
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/     (01)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>