Hi Barry: Good comments. See my adjustments below in []. (01)
Roy (02)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Smith, Barry
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 6:43 PM
To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion; ONTAC-WG General Discussion
Subject: RE: [ontac-forum] Surveyed Ontology "Library" Systems (03)
Responding to Roy: (04)
....
>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".) (05)
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. (06)
[Instances of the physical and virtual categories of locations are more
tangible and thus more understandable to most people. When I used the
term "placename" above in identifying example categories of more
abstract conceptual locations I was not precise. I should have said
"and other names of places". Regarding your comments though, I would
submit that a specific name of a place is a location. Examples of such
places, relevant to the users of the place name (i.e., part of their
relative vocabulary and their individual and related group contexts)
this would be: home, the office, the school, Mary's, grandma's, the
store, the target). These conceptual locations would have no
global/larger/absolute meaning unless the vocabulary and contextual
meaning of the user was known. Such a capability is one of the design
goals of the GO. For the value of using conceptual locations, consider
how useful it would be if anti-terrorism or anti-crime authorities could
discern absolute physical and/or virtual locations from a casual remark
about "the target" from someone under surveillance whose vocabulary and
relative context and been identified/analyzed.] (07)
>2. Organization Ontologies/Services (i.e., organization-specific for
>government, commercial, and private organization entities) (08)
And we should avoid use of '/', unless it is very clearly defined
what it means. (09)
[Agreed. What I was seeking to represent here is that from a practical
value-chain perspective, an ontology is equivalent to a "service
design", while an instance knowledge-base is equivalent to a specific
"service". Extending that, a functional ontology in the GO would be a
"service design in its value-chain context" and a functional
knowledge-base would be a specific "service in its value-chain
context".] (010)
>3. Organization Unit Ontologies/Services (i.e.,
>organization-unit-specific for staff offices, program offices,
>project offices, teams, positions, roles) (011)
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. (012)
[I have had organization staffing and structure assigned duties and
training in the past (i.e., 1983-1989 - Army Manpower Management,
1992-1995 - Organization Development, 1982-2005 - Enterprise
Engineering), so in my thinking, an organization is: a legal entity with
an executive responsibility for the outcome and conduct of some
endeavor. (013)
An organization unit is: a portion of an organization established to
perform a specific function in support of its parent-organization's
endeavor, with such portions being categorized as staff offices, program
offices, project offices, and informal teams, with staff positions
within offices, and roles across one or more positions and within teams. (014)
If an endeavor is being pursued without one or more responsible legal
organizations as its core, then it is a "community" endeavor consisting
of multiple coordinated informal participants and informal teams.] (015)
>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) (016)
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. (017)
[I am referring here to categories of functional ontologies (i.e., a
taxonomy of functions). When creating a taxonomy of functions, these
three top level categories would be appropriate. I see some vocabulary
battles brewing under these discussions, so we probably need to define
the following terms within the ONTAC group, and identify how they relate
to each other: vocabulary, concept, concept map, taxonomy, semantic
network, semantic model, ontology, knowledge-base. I have to go now,
but will pick up on this later, along with incorporating the recommended
adjustments into my previous recommended GO Library Catalog.] (018)
>4.3 Support Function Ontologies
>4.3.1 Human Capital Management Ontologies (019)
Reminds me, again, of HL7: (020)
Animal =def animal-of-interest to the Personnel Management Domain (021)
BS (022)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinating
WG (023)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (024)
|