To: | <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | "Gary Berg-Cross" <gary.berg-cross@xxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:57:55 -0500 |
Message-id: | <330E3C69AFABAE45BD91B28F80BE32C905629D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
I wanted to follow up on Pat’s
response to my issue on the FEA-RMO
and DoD core taxonomy. Pat> The DoD Core doesn't
pretend to be an ontology, and the FEA-RMO is, as Gary points out, closer to a
Reference Model, though expressed in ontology format. There are
nevertheless good reasons to try to connect these to the UMLS. (a) The
FEA-RMO is an active project, which may well form part of any common ontology
ultimately developed for use within that federal government. There are
expectations that the SICoP will help in some way in the development of
that model. The ONTACWG could be helpful in making recommendations on the
best way to formalize the FEA-RMO and align it with other knowledge
representation efforts within the government, even if much of the work will in
fact be done by contractors. I think it would be unfortunate if we
ignored it, since we can bring a broad perspective that can make ontologies
developed from or related to the Pat> FEA-RMO more
functional. I was in favor of taking the FEA DRM
into account as I said in my message to Denise of Fri, 7 Oct 2005 11:54:53
-0400 The point I would make is that the
FEA has categories by fiat that are not themselves an adequate model of
enterprises, but could be related to such an enterprise ontology, The DRM is perhaps the best of the set
in that the method proposes taxonomies to classify data concepts, however, at
this point it is up to submitters to build there own taxonomies. So we will have dozens and dozens of
different ones for 2.0. Based on
what we see in these submissions we can probably see ways to harmonize
these. So I’d be in favor of work
this way to improve the DRM not use it as it is now or will be in the near
future. I also said in that Oct. message “In
general, I believe that modeling efforts need to have a focus or else we may
wind up modeling the ocean boiling”
Now this idea in the context of DRM data interoperability is given
substance by Rick Murphy and John Sowa. John> That may be true, but we should ask the
next question: If we want Program A to interoperate
with Program B, why should we merge every aspect of the
ontology that was used by the developers of Program A with
every aspect of the ontology used by the developers of
Program B? (012) One term I
like is "task-oriented interoperability":
if you try to merge two ontologies, you
have to look at the *union* of all the categories in
both. But if you
want to enable two programs to
interoperate, you only need to look at the subsets that are
relevant to the task. (013) Merging two
small ontologies is much, much easier.
And more importantly, if you are only
looking at a specific task, it is very likely that the
subsets appropriate to the task will have similar
perspectives. (014) Recommendation: Shift attention from the unsolvable
problem of building, merging, and
coordinating global world views to the task of developing an open-ended
collection of modules that can be selected, assembled, and
tailored for particular John> tasks or collections of
tasks. Taking a few of the discussions as a
whole some will favor this modular approach and others the core/hub idea and
perhaps we should launch both efforts based on interest and gut feeling and have
them share work on a regular basis. Best Regards Gary Berg-Cross
_________________________________________________________________ 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) |
Previous by Date: | RE: [ontac-forum] Some thoughts on hub ontology and merging sources, West, Matthew R SIPC-DFD/321 |
---|---|
Next by Date: | [ontac-forum] Top Quadrant White Paper on FEA Reference Model Ontologies, psp |
Previous by Thread: | RE: [ontac-forum] Some thoughts on hub ontology and merging sources, psp |
Next by Thread: | [ontac-forum] A suggestion for ontological discussions at ONTAC meetings., Gary Berg-Cross |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |