|From:||"Gary Berg-Cross" <gary.berg-cross@xxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:57:55 -0500|
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)
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)
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)
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.
_________________________________________________________________ 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)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|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]|