To: | <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
Cc: | Roy Roebuck <Roy.Roebuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
From: | "Roy Roebuck" <Roy.Roebuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:10:57 -0400 |
Message-id: | <878871F15E22CF4FA0CCFDD27A763B2F03A9EF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Hello:
At the Oct 5 meeting we used
the terms "Upper Ontology", which from the comments I've read since then, are
controversial and ambiguous.
So, instead of seeking a
single upper ontology corresponding to an individual or group's topical
world-view, why not build a generalized ontology, orthogonal to all upper and
lower ontologies/topics, that applies everywhere, to everything, at
all levels of detail, based on the known physical aspects of the universe (time,
energy, space, matter, etc.)?
I'm not so well-versed in ontologies,
linguistics, etc., only having an undergraduate degree in physics and a masters
in systems management, with work almost totally in functional and organizational
management and management analysis. What I've sought to do, which seems to
have led me into this realm of ontologies, semantics, taxonomies, etc.,
is to provide a means for anyone involved in a purposeful endeavor, i.e.,
an "enterprise", to ask and answer questions in a manner that would be
understood by all others within the enterprise and/or its external
environment.
If you consider a person's
world view to be the "architecture" of their specific knowledge of that world,
and their understanding of the workings of that world to be their
world-view's ontology, then each person's basic questions and answers about
that world are built on the following words: who, what, where, when, why,
how, etc., in whatever language they use. Each of these
words relate to combinations of the universe's above physical
aspects. Persons typically try to share their specific world-knowledge by
conveying their world-view architecture, and convey their general
world-knowledge by conveying their world-view ontology.
My mid-1980's experience in reorganizing
and re-justifying the mission, functions, organizational structure, equipment,
personnel, budget, etc. of a large military command (16000+ people,
commanded by Army Major General, as a NATO tactical command), was my first
significant work with ontologies. I was the command's Management
Officer, then Assistant Resource Manager. These duties grew to include IT and
information/records, because I justified the first IT and networks for the
command's peacetime activities.
I discovered in helping to ask and answer
the questions needed to manage, improve, engineer, and justify the
command that the basic questions usually showed up using their natural name
(time, space, etc.) in forms and reports, or were more typically re-labeled as
shown in the 7 categories below.
These seven sets of basic question
categories form the root classes of the above generalized ontology.
When considering these seven
categories/classes as a set, as is required to define and manage the life cycle
of the individual and aggregate mission requirements, then the natural relations
(e.g., "lines of sight") between these natural classes are:
The generalized types of relations, also
derived from the physical aspects of the universe are:
A generalized ontology can be provided, as
a common reference for all narrower ontologies/world-views, using this 7 class
by 7 relation-type set, as illustrated in the attached ontology/framework
model.
When inventorying and categorizing an
enterprise's vocabulary of nouns into these 7 general classes, and
then generalizing each vocabulary-noun's relations to other nouns using one
or more of these 7 general relation-types, then this general ontology can
provide a common ontology providing the capabilities of
integrating/unifying/merging/normalizing other ontologies as a "management
backplane", among other uses such as data sharing, dynamic (vocabulary-based)
communities, security/responsibility/permissions architecture,
workforce/expertise development and management, rapid knowledge/awareness
transference, etc.
Roy
Roy
Roebuck
Senior Architect
CommIT
Enterprises, Inc.
703-598-2351
roy.roebuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
GEM Framework Model and Methodology Flow.jpg _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/ To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/ Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/ Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (01) |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | RE: [ontac-forum] COSMO Working Group -- sign up!, Cassidy, Patrick J. |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontac-forum] COSMO Working Group -- sign up!, Charles D Turnitsa |
Previous by Thread: | [ontac-forum] Upper ontology / common semantic model, Dagobert Soergel |
Next by Thread: | [ontac-forum] COSMO (upper model) Technical Kick off, Peterson, Eric |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |