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. [RR: Fully
agree. I see it as a natural progression of capability to record,
process, and visualize information. See attached diagram on
Progression of Written Information. Note that the whole industry of
“object orientation” began around the same time frame. All I did was
say that the “enterprise is an object in its environment”, and then used
object-oriented analysis and design to build myself some useful
applications. My only prevalent distinction is the “whole enterprise”
perspective and the use of a limited number of root classes, relationships,
and roles, which I discovered in my roles as manager and analyst.]
MW2: From your more recent link
I've been able to get a very quick look at what you are offering. It
seems to cover the same sort of territory as the Zachman Framework, which I
am more familiar with, is that a fair
comparison?
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. [RR: Fully
agree.] 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.
[RR: But something can start out as a pragmatic, but not technically
pure ontology/knowedge-management/application effort and migrate towards
philosophical purity as it evolves. Most people wouldn’t mind paying
for a “good enough” solution right now rather than a complete/perfect
solution sometime later.]
MW2: Well I don't know about
most people, but certainly some people probably would. Depends what your
action timeline is.
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? [To provide
near-term future Federal Enterprise Architecture as an ontology-based
knowledge-management foundation for Federal virtual/composite applications,
and for functional integration, continuity, and stability of operations, in
my experience.]
MW2: I agree that is what it
appears to address. However, before I accepted it I would want to do some
quality assurance. For me this would mean mapping it into the ISO 15926
ontology to see the nature of the sorts of things it included (and
whether they were well enough defined to place them accurately). I expect
Barry Smith would want to do the same with BFO before he would be comfortable (and so on for others with
upper ontologies). I would also want to look at other sources of evidence of
requirements, such as the Zachman Framework and the data model David Hay has
produced based on it. I might add that I did not think that this was the
limit of the scope of the proposed work
here.
Roy
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?