To: | Ontology Summit 2013 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:33:34 -0700 (PDT) |
Message-id: | <1363300414.65970.YahooMailNeo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Dr. Sowa, I think "Capability" is the ability to do something. But in the product context, it is the " feature" of the product. Anyways, at a strategic level, context can be different other than software product. So I will let you all discuss it. Thanks, Pavithra From: John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Thank you. 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/ _________________________________________________________________ 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] Thank you., Pavithra |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontology-summit] Thank you., Obrst, Leo J. |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontology-summit] Thank you., Luciano, Joanne S. |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontology-summit] Thank you., Obrst, Leo J. |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |