RE: [ontac-forum] Some thoughts on hub ontology and merging sources

["West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321" <matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Roy,

 

See comments below.

 

Regards

Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/

-----Original Message-----
From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Roy Roebuck
Sent: 18 November 2005 17:04
To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
Subject: RE: [ontac-forum] Some thoughts on hub ontology and merging sources

Hi:

 

I discovered, modeled, and informally published them in the early 1980’s, and personally have been using them since then.  I informally published them on the Internet in 1994, at http://one-world-is.com.  This is the source for what I’m asserting as the “General Ontology” - it is good enough (as a hub/core/general ontology) to provide a general-use knowledge-base (i.e., from an endeavor’s framework (as an ontology) yielding a model/architecture) and provide the foundation for role-based-security and virtual applications for the subjects modeled within it. 

 

MW: I think you will find many people here have done something similar, some even on a similar timescale. 

 

When looking at the range of Ontologist-orientations present in this forum, I see two main axes of divergence.  I call one the “Utility” axis, which ranges from “Philosophy” on one end to “Pragmatic” on the other.  The other I call the ‘Correctness” axis, which ranges from “Purist/Final/100% correctness” on one end to “Sufficient/Practical/Workable correctness” on the other.   

 

MW: I think you will find that these axes are aligned, so that the more philosophical are also higher on the correctness scale. This is because (my experience at least is) that the more correct you try to be the more philosphical you have to get to achieve that. Again my personal experience and journey has been that the more capability you wish to deliver, the more "correct" you need to be.

 

The General Ontology I’m offering may not be philosophically pure, but it is practically sufficient.   

 

MW: I don't doubt that it is, but the question is for what? The more it is to be interpreted by people rather than machines, the more pragmatic/less "correct" you can afford to be. People fill in the gaps and think for themselves. The more you are expecting machines to interpret the ontology the more "correct" it needs to be because machines are awefully dumb. But I'm sure you know that.

 

 I would submit that ONTAC is chartered to produce Pragmatic and Sufficient ontology/semantic/taxonomy solutions for SICoP and FEA/CIOC/AIC, and not get bogged down into the Analysis-Paralysis of ontology Philosophy and Purity. 

 

MW: I ask again - for what? 

 

Roy

 

CommIT Enterprises, Inc. Enterprise Architecture for Enterprise Management, Security, and Knowledge

Roy Roebuck III
Senior Enterprise Architect

2231 Crystal Drive, Ste 501
Arlingon, VA 22202

roy.roebuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

mobile: fax:   direct:

+1 (703)-598-2351 +1 (703) 486-5540 +1 (703) 486-5506

 

 Add me to your address book...

 

---

From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of psp
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 10:26 AM
To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
Subject: RE: [ontac-forum] Some thoughts on hub ontology and merging sources

 

When did these "good enough" ontologies become available?

 

Paul Prueitt

_________________________________________________________________
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)