Mike Bennett wrote: (01)
> On the point of:
>
> We also need a non-normative graphical representation, to enable
> rapid comprehension. The ODM Profile for OWL (using UML tools) suggests
> itself, but I usually use a more vanilla UML form for presentation of
> basic concepts.
>
> I have developed a UML based presentation based on ODM but with
> adaptations to enhance business SME readability, though it is a bit out
> of date against the current ODM. This can also be reported as non-UML
> diagrams (UML tool but with all the UML stuff turned off so that the SME
> doesn't see a language they know they don't know). And spreadsheets,
> which are a bit labour-intensive to produce but are the native language
> of many business domain folks. (02)
IMO, the reason for the diagrams is to view the relationships among the
classes, so that the knowledge engineer can "grok" the whole ontology.
The diagram presents the forest, and leaves the trees to the formal
language. For this purpose, spreadsheets are nearly useless. (03)
> I thought I should add this to the list of possibilities in case it is
> helpful. (04)
Absolutely. (05)
<sidebar>
> We may be able to get suitable SME readability using the
> official ODM profile with the UML indications turned off, also, which
> would probably be preferable. My basic rule has been that as soon as a
> business SME sees some geeky piece of punctuation in a diagram, then
> they know it is in a format they don't know, so this reduces the quality
> of any SME review input. (06)
The trick is not to be excessively geeky. My late mentor, Dr. Selden
Stewart, once observed that all modeling languages are BLAs -- boxes,
lines and annotations. As long as you stick with class boxes/balls,
association/property lines/wires, and text labels (annotations), you
don't violate the "anti-technical" prejudices of "business persons".
Even "multiplicities" don't typically generate backlash. (07)
The problem child is the subtype representation, and it is not just the
representation -- it forces business people to perform an unfamiliar
intellectual operation: abstraction. OTOH, business people love "part
of", and I hate it, and I stay as far away from it as possible. (08)
> In any case, my approach may come somewhere
> close to your "vanilla" UML presentation which you probably use for
> similar reasons. (09)
I imagine so.
</sidebar> (010)
> To complicate things, and simplify them for the
> reviewer, my format also supports different coloured archetypes, which
> would not translate into the underlying OWL format but make the diagrams
> richer. This would allow you to graphically distinguish measurements,
> quantities and units, for example. (011)
I don't see the readership for our would-be standard including "business
persons" or "business analysts" directly. The intent of the standard is
to reach the knowledge engineers. But the form in which they would
explain it to the business analysts where necessary might well be a
"companion piece" that benefits from your made-for-Powerpoint additions.
I would be all in favor of the "Annex for presentation to domain
experts", but others might see that as "marketable IP", not appropriate
for the standard itself. (012)
-Ed (013)
--
Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 (014)
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." (015)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard (016)
|