Excellent! I’ve reviewed the material
Gary cites, and
agree that an “ontology library” capability would be very useful in
the COSMO, ONTAC, SICOP, and Web-Service collaborations. I also submit
that a “natural” outline of ontologies (i.e., packages of functions,
processes, and process input/control/output/mechanism resources such as metadata,
data, funds, skills) as services could be organized using the General Ontology
(GO) as outlined below:
1. Location Ontologies/Services (i.e.,
location-specific for: physical/geospatial/geodetic and postal locations;
virtual locations such as URI, URL, Phone/Fax Numbers, IP Addresses, and UNC;
and conceptual locations such as “region”, “area”, “placename”.)
2. Organization Ontologies/Services (i.e.,
organization-specific for government, commercial, and private organization
entities)
3. Organization Unit Ontologies/Services
(i.e., organization-unit-specific for staff offices, program offices, project
offices, teams, positions, roles)
4. Function Ontologies/Services (i.e.,
function-specific “what is done” models for executive, production,
and support functions, into which most published ontologies and
business-component services would be categorized)
4.1 Executive Function Ontologies
4.1.1 Strategic Management Ontology
4.1.2 Portfolio Management Ontology
4.1.3 Program Management Ontology
4.1.4 Project Management Ontology
4.2 Production Function Ontologies
4.2.1 NAICS Code Ontologies
4.2.1.1 Medical Ontologies
4.2.1.2 Industrial Ontologies
4.2.1.3 Service Ontologies
4.2.2 Military Operations Ontologies
(e.g., Doctrine, ConOps, TOE)
4.2.3 Civil Government Operations
Ontologies
4.2.3.1 OMB FEA BRM
4.3 Support Function Ontologies
4.3.1 Human Capital Management
Ontologies
4.3.2 Intelligence Management
Ontologies (e.g., monitoring, change/event detection, signals, data,
information, knowledge, awareness, analysis, decision, results)
4.3.3 Funds Management Ontologies
4.3.4 Skills (e.g., workforce/training/education/qualification)
Management Ontologies
4.3.5 Materiel Management Ontologies
4.3.6 Facilities Management
Ontologies
4.3.7 Services (e.g., outsourced
functions and process mechanisms) Management Ontologies
4.3.8 Space Management Ontologies
(e.g., managing room, office, building, city, county, state areas and volumes)
4.3.9 Energy Management Ontologies
(e.g., production, collection, distribution, consumption, and conservation of
energies)
4.3.10 Time Management Ontologies
(e.g., resource, task, project, program, strategy, process, function, value-chain,
workflow, dependence coordination in time)
5. Process Ontologies/Services (i.e.,
process-specific “how function is done” for use by multiple
functions as “best practice” processes, such as those represented
by “standards” such as for software or software engineering (CMMI,
CMM, ANSI/EIA 632 System Engineering, ANSI/EIA 12207.x Software Life Cycle
Management), project management (e.g., PMI), etc.)
5.1 Natural Process Ontologies
5.2 Electro-Mechanical Process
Ontologies
5.3 Social Process Ontologies
5.3.1 Economic Process Ontologies
5.3.2 Governance Process Ontologies
5.3.2.1 OMB FEA SRM
5.3.3 Education Process Ontologies
5.4 Electronic Process Ontologies
5.5 Automated Process Ontologies
6. Resource Ontologies/Services (i.e.,
ontologies specific to process inputs/controls/outputs/mechanisms of people,
intelligence, funds, skills, materiel, facilities, services, space, energy,
time, etc., which may also be categorized as “support function ontologies
above)
7. Mission
Requirement Ontologies
7.1 Requirements Management Life
Cycle
7.2 Development Management
7.3 Operations Management
7.4 Maintenance Management
7.5 Redistribution and Disposition
Management
I submit that the organization of
ontologies in the libraries cited below and previously in this listserv will
fit within the above GO library catalog structure. I submit that several
ontology management (modeling/integrating/repository) products, if implementing
this general ontology, could then be used as an ontology library/repository for
OWL, OWL-S, RDF, RDFS, etc. ontologies, and also for web-service (e.g., WSDL)
registries as an alternative to UDDI service registries.
Roy
P.S. If you’ve ever heard the cliché
that “to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail”, then
you’ll probably recognize that I perceive, based on over two decades of
research and analysis, that the GO/GEM is a “general solution” to
any management need. RR
From:
ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gary Berg-Cross
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005
5:34 PM
To: ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ontac-forum] Surveyed
Ontology "Library" Systems
At our kick off meeting we discussed an
action to assemble a list of candidate ontologies. There have been a few
mentioned in the various posting, but I'm not sure that anyone is collecting a
list.
I don't think this is up to date, but it discusses managing a
collections onf ontologies and one could look at the lattices for these.
The major ones mentioned are:
•
WebOnto
(http://eldora.open.ac.uk:3000/webonto):
–
Knowledge Media Institute, Open University, UK,
•
Ontolingual (http://www-ksl-svc.stanford.edu:5915/):
–
Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Stanford University, USA),
DAML Ontology library system (http://www.daml.org/ontologies/):
SHOE (http://www.cs.umd.edu/projects/plus/SHOE/):
–
University of Maryland, USA,
Ontology Server (http://www.starlab.vub.ac.be/research/dogma/OntologyServer.htm):
–
Vrije Universiteit, Brussels, Belgium,
•
IEEE Standard Upper Ontology (http://suo.ieee.org/refs.html):
OntoServer (http://ontoserver.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/):
–
AIFB, University of Karlshruhe, Germany
•
ONIONS (http://saussure.irmkant.rm.cnr.it/onto/):
–
Biomedical Technologies Institute (ITBM) of the
Italian National Research Council (CNR), Italy.
Gary Berg-Cross