|To:||Hans Polzer <hpolzer@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 'Ontology Summit 2013 discussion' <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:25:05 -0800 (PST)|
Thanks for NCOIC SCOPE model info. Yes, Capability matrix and defining the Scope is a good way of handling scope creep.
But to be with the rest of the group, we were addressing about Requirements, evaluation of Ontology, framework and intrinsic vs extrinsic evaluation.
Here is what Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy says about Intrinsic vs Extrinsic values:
Intrinsic value has traditionally been thought to lie at the heart of ethics. Philosophers use a number of terms to refer to such value. The intrinsic value of something is said to be the value that that thing has “in itself,” or “for its own sake,” or “as such,” or “in its own right. & Extrinsic value is that something has in virtue of its extrinsic, relational properties.
How does that apply to Requirements, evaluation of Ontology, framework?? Leo & Steve Ray say that Intrinsic include - syntactic & semantics and Extrinsic includes pragmatic .. How do you measure pragmatic??
Do we have such measure of evaluation in software engineering and do we use the same concepts is something that I was researching about ..
From: Hans Polzer <hpolzer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: 'Pavithra' <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>; 'Ontology Summit 2013 discussion' <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:50 PM
Subject: RE: [ontology-summit] Scope of ontology: Issues:
The problem with requirements is that their scope is usually implicit, and rarely “explored” at the system/enterprise boundary because of the dreaded “scope creep” you mention, and that most project sponsors and program managers seek to avoid. This also leads to most major interoperability problems because other programs/systems/ontologies in the environment don’t share those requirements – they are considered “out of scope”. The trick to minimizing the potential negative consequences of overly narrow requirements scope is to widen the scope “aperture” at the outset of requirements analysis, and only narrow it after enough design consequences are explored to determine which dimensions of scope creep are affordable and likely to be cost-effective, and which should be left explicitly out of scope. It’s important to do this in partnership with the sponsors and representative stakeholders so that they can make an informed decision about requirements scope and its potential consequences, and it is equally important to document scope decisions explicitly so that participants continue to be aware of what those decisions were throughout the lifecycle of whatever artifact is being developed. The NCOIC SCOPE model is designed as a tool to facilitate this process for systems/enterprises that want to work with other systems in the environment to help achieve their objectives.
Pardon me if I am interrupting. First of all what are Requirements ? How does it apply to Ontology and its application?
We define Ontology as the structure and behavior of a thing that exists naturally or man made.
If you have to define the requirements for Ontology for a bird, you have observer what it is, ( description like it has wings, beak, feather etc) and its behavior.
But if you have to define the Ontology of a plane, you have formal requirement specification to build a plane and operate a plane by inventor or formal authorized body.
I think requirements of defining Ontology ( description of structure and behavior) is what is used in developing specification for languages like OWL..
Again, is that what we call or agree on as Ontology requirements ??
In Software engineering/ system development, your stake holders and users define what the system should consists of and what it should do, and the rules associated with it, and processes to follow. The word "Ontology" is used in a abstract / conceptual way. In Software Engineering / Systems have well defined boundary of what the system should do, and there is a concept of scope creep to manage requirements and releases.
And there is a phase called Requirements Analysis do so as part of the life cycle. Here is link to wikipedia for description
My two cents about requirements.. hope that helps,
No, it is rarely “the” application, but application is always in mind, I think, when you develop an ontology. What, after all, are requirements? Requirements for what? Represent ontology classes, relations, properties (axioms) to a certain level of granularity? What is the targeted level of granularity and why? Personally I think you always have an application (applications) in mind when you develop ontologies. Reuse of an ontology occurs when you have another application(s) in mind.
The application may be very general or very specific: provide a superstructure for mid-level and domain ontologies for semantic interoperability (of systems), enable semantic search by characterizing concepts to be used for conceptual “term” expansion or content-tagging, provide a basis for enterprise engineering, provide semantic integration for these 5 databases. To me, those are applications, albeit some are generic applications.
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
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/
_________________________________________________________________ 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>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontology-summit] Scope of ontology: Issues:, Hans Polzer|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontology-summit] Reasoners and the life cycle, Alan Rector|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontology-summit] Scope of ontology: Issues:, Hans Polzer|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontology-summit] Scope of ontology: Issues:, Matthew West|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|