In GOEF the words are different, however, the three questions, or levels seem
to map. No words alone will suffice without a description. I'm tempted to
rename or a b c, (but I don't like those either). (01)
GOEF:
"top" level - Function i.e. why? // why are you building this ontology? for
what purpose? (and implied in that is the capability).
"mid" level - Standard i.e. what? // what standard do you need to meet?
"low" level - Component i.e. how?-- the components are needed? (and this
doesn't rule out multiple ways of getting there. At points during the call
today, "optimization" had come to mind. there are more than one way to solve
many problems, and in different scenarios (or use cases, or instances, or
circumstances, or times, etc.) different solutions will be optimal. (02)
JSL (03)
On Mar 14, 2013, at 6:09 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote: (04)
> Dear Matthew, Pavithra, and Ian,
>
> This thread is one more example where many discussions of ontology
> begin to address a very important issue, but without using a suitable
> foundation for dealing with it.
>
> MW
>> I think [Pavithra] nicely explained why there is a need to talk in terms
>> of capabilities. I agree all the things you mention are also part of
>> the mix, but capabilities gives you a way to bring it together.
>
> I agree that the notion of 'capability' is critical to many issues
> in ontology, but it brings with it many associated notions.
>
> PK
>> A capability can be translated as a function or service that meets certain
>> set of requirements as defined by stake holders/organization/interested
>parties .
>
> But as Ian said, a capability is not a function or service.
>
> IB
>> The concept of capability as a tool for strategic planning originates in the
>military.
>
> The concept is much older, but the recognition that capabilities are
> critical for strategy is important.
>
> IB
>> The whole idea is to allow strategic thinking without resorting to design
>> of processes. Capabilities should be expressed in terms of outcomes -
>> what, not how.
>
> I agree, but I'd add the word 'why'. When the military (or anybody
> else) raises issues about strategy, the fundamental question is *why?*
>
> The questions What? and How? raise tactical issues: "What?" asks
> for a description of the desired outcome. "How?" asks for a method
> for achieving the outcome -- i.e., getting from where we are to where
> we want to be.
>
> But "Why?" is the penetrating question that addresses strategy.
> The questions "What?" and "How?" are tactical questions. But "Why?"
> get to the heart of the matter: *desire.* What is the reason that
> makes one outcome more desirable than another? Instead of 'desire',
> use the related words 'goal', 'purpose', 'intention', or 'reason'.
>
> IB
>> The concept has now found much wider use in the commercial world -
>> see http://hbr.org/2010/06/the-coherence-premium/ar/1 and it also
>> seems to have found a home in IT for portfolio management and
>> application rationalisation,
>
> Yes, but. In every one of those applications, the question "Why?"
> is always lurking behind the scenes.
>
> IB
>> It's a very tricky concept to model in an ontology.
>
> I agree that most ontologists ignore it -- at their peril.
>
> Peirce addressed it in depth. But his terminology of Firstness,
> Secondness, and Thirdness scares people. That is why I suggest
> the question words what, how, and why.
>
> The question "What?" can be answered with a monadic predicate
> that describes something by itself. The question "How" can be
> answered with a dyadic relation of some agent (1) acting upon
> something (2). But the question *Why?* always requires a triadic
> relation, implicit or explicit, in the answer: Somebody (1) did
> or will do something (2) for some purpose or reason (3).
>
> IB
>> Chris Partridge did a lot of work on this for us - esp.
>> around the dispositional aspects of capability.
>
> The word 'disposition' was introduced by behaviorists to avoid
> coming to grips with purposes and intentions. Instead of saying
> that X has a purpose or intention to do something, they just
> say that X has a "disposition" to do it.
>
> Whenever anybody uses the word 'disposition', I just ask "Why?"
> And I keep repeating "Why?" until they break down and say explicitly
> what was the purpose, intention, or reason.
>
> It's also the most important question that Socrates asked. It drove
> some powerful Athenians crazy. That's why they gave him the poison.
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/ (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (06)
|