|From:||"Gary Berg-Cross" <gary.berg-cross@xxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:25:14 -0400|
I'm a few days behind on the messages, but Roy mentioned building an ontology for 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." This is kindred to my earlier suggestion that an ontology as a model needs to have a purpose to focus the effort and I have a few observations on the topic
Rou provided some definitions for things like Enterprise = a purposeful endeavor = a mission (regardless of number of participants, budget, physical dispersal, etc.
and a set of 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.
He then proposed that the seven sets of basic question categories form the root classes of his generalized ontology.
I think it relevant to mention the experience with Enterprise Ontologies such as TOVE going back a dozen years or so. Mike Gunninger participated in the frist meeting so he might have much more to say, but a simple observation is that Enterprise Ontologies have developed quite a bit more specfics including the important relations between makor areas and enterprise elements.
The following, for example, is a list of the terms defined in the Enterprise Ontology developed by the AI Applications Institute at the
The central concept of the Strategy section is Purpose. Purpose captures the idea either of something which a PLAN can HELP ACHIEVE or that an ORGANISATION UNIT can be responsible for.
The point is that we should build on prior work and also go beyond simple categories to models with structured relations. As Eric mention some of these topics has been previously discussed in the SUO forum. Some of it is older than that. Lattice hierarchies were mentioned several times and Roy mentioned some thimgs such as a set of relations that seemd to me to not being the state of the art of thinking about these things.
Below is the hierarchy lattice of ontologies from a 1994 KIF library. Each ontology defined a set of formal terms ande an ontology at one level includes those ontologies that it are indented under it. This just illustrates that some of these issues have been discussed before and we should make sure we aren't wasting time by starting at immature points.
_________________________________________________________________ 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] Invitation to Expedition Wkshp on November 8 at NSF - Information Sharing Challenges Around Diverse Digital Collections, Roberto Bordogna|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontac-forum] Enterprise Model categories and ontology, dbedford|
|Previous by Thread:||[ontac-forum] Invitation to Expedition Wkshp on November 8 at NSF - Information Sharing Challenges Around Diverse Digital Collections, susan . turnbull|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontac-forum] Enterprise Model categories and ontology, dbedford|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|