On 11/7/2014 11:31 PM, Jack Ring wrote:
> It may be useful to note that the shift in focus is from what
> a system IS to what a system DOES. Net-centric emphasized
> the happenings among the things. (01)
I agree that some shift -- any shift -- away from "IS" would be useful.
The word 'ontology', by itself, just means the study of existence.
Formal ontology is just the use of formal notations and methods
for doing that study. Unless you have some other goal, that doesn't
give you much guidance. (02)
In addition to asking "What is it?", you can get somewhat more
guidance if you then ask "What does it do?" (03)
But I'd also like to cite the full line from Michael G's note:
> Internet of Everything: Toward Smart Networked Systems and Societies (04)
That subtitle helps to give a bit more guidance. But I'd also like
to ask an embarrassing question: In the initial analysis stage,
does formal ontology give us any more help or guidance than the
old 20th-century methods of systems analysis? (05)
There was a huge amount of work on structured systems analysis.
Some notations and methods used logic, and others were more informal.
And some informal systems, such as UML, were later formalized. (06)
What does ontology add? (07)
John (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2015/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/OntologySummit2015
Community Portal: http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/ (09)
|