|
Barry, I agree with your comments. I would further add that there is a distinction between business function roles, and business functions. They are two distinct facets, although they may be associated in some contexts. We have found that the business roles may have value in the context of defining relationships to and among entities within and outside of particular business functions. But, definitely that they are not one and the same. I also fully support your comment regarding the '/'.
Best regards, Denise -----ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: -----
To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Smith, Barry" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 10/22/2005 06:43PM
Subject: RE: [ontac-forum] Surveyed Ontology "Library" Systems
Responding to Roy:
>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".)
A place name is not a location.
A "placename" is also not a location.
If we are to have a natural ontology -- an ontology people will feel
comfortable with using and trust to be rigorous, we have to be very
careful with distinctions such as this.
>2. Organization Ontologies/Services (i.e., organization-specific for
>government, commercial, and private organization entities)
And we should avoid use of '/', unless it is very clearly defined
what it means.
>3. Organization Unit Ontologies/Services (i.e.,
>organization-unit-specific for staff offices, program offices,
>project offices, teams, positions, roles)
There is a problem if we have as a top-level organizing principle for
a general ontology a very specific distinction between organizations
on the one hand and organization units on the other.
>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)
And there is the same problem here: the distinctions between
executive functions, production functions, etc. do not belong in the
top level of a general ontology.
>4.3 Support Function Ontologies
>4.3.1 Human Capital Management Ontologies
Reminds me, again, of HL7:
Animal =def animal-of-interest to the Personnel Management Domain
BS
_________________________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|