Matthew, (01)
a good operational definition of "purpose" relative to
ontology construction. (02)
Here is my very personal and subjective view: (03)
An ontology plays a role in a software to ensure optimality of
interoperability between the various components in a software architecture.
The "purpose" question is answered by efforts at large, such as the
MDA/OMG --- to optimize the process of software creation, function and
interoperability under operational-demands. For example "better,
cheaper, faster, more ... ". The key motive is to reduce effort in
maintenance and to enhance reuse, commonality of models and exchanges in
changes to models. (04)
Ontologies, from my perspective, determine framework roles in an
architecture. In a design, an ontology plays the role of
data-definition-language. In a component-object, the ontology serves to
enable encapsulation of common semantics between objects for
interoperability. The problem is that these areas all intercede into
each other. For example, in a large architectural effort, several
frameworks, perhaps from different vendors will be combined under a
common meta-model, whose very definition stems from the ontology that
the architecture team and the stakeholders must define as they create
it. These decisions are critical and hence, depending on the purpose
the archtiecture serves, the ontology will necessarily flow from the
purpose of the efffort. (05)
I recommend reading Christopher Alexander's books on architecture for
timeless principles as well as the GOF (Gang Of Four - Erich Gemma et
al.) and James Coplien on design patterns. (06)
In my conceptualization, ontologies serve to determine the denotational
semantics of pattern-based architecture and design whose aggregate
purpose is to tame complexity, increase reuse and interoperability. The
idea is to expose the knowledge that was used and to take lessons
learned in successive iterations in the context of optimality
(requirements, performance,cost, benefits, etc...). (07)
Is there any way of creating a formalization of the purpose for a
particular ontology? Wouldn't that be useful in identifying whether a
particular ontology was applicable in a any given situation? Has any
research been done on how particular aspects of a purpose inform better
ontology construction (i.e. perhaps incorporating desired aspects of the
outcome into the modeling methodology)? (08)
The question your are asking here, I assume, is one about
*methodologies*. I suggest the Bohm Spiral, MEASUR, Common KADS and in
concert with Aspect Orientation, and some of the new agent programming
methodologies (see James Odell's site and work). There is a lot to say
about methodologies, but I believe that this is a seperate thread out of
context (I may be wrong) for this group. However, feel free to write me
on this offline, if you are inclined ( and I pointer you there ). (09)
Thanks, (010)
Arun Majumdar
VivoMind Intelligence Inc. (011)
Allen Matthew wrote: (012)
>ONTAC-WG:
>
>I'd like to pose a question in this forum, with the hopes that someone
>might point me to any relevant research to satisfy my curiosity. Based
>on past threads in this forum, it seemed like a promising place to ask
>the question.
>
>Has their been any work done on how the purpose behind building an
>ontology affects the chosen conceptualization? In this case, I know
>from the start that I'm using the word "purpose" loosely, and one of my
>goals is to find a good operational definition of "purpose" relative to
>ontology construction. Most would acknowledge that there are multiple
>ways of conceptualizing a particular domain, and that the way we choose
>to do it in any particular situation is tied to what we want to use the
>ontology for, or a particular perspective on that domain. For example,
>the concept of "Scorpion" might be understood as "thing that lives in
>the desert", or "thing that is an animal" (or both) dependent upon why
>we're interested in scorpions in the first place. This "why we're
>interested in scorpions in the first place" is what I'm referring to as
>"purpose".
>
>Is there any way of creating a formalization of the purpose for a
>particular ontology? Wouldn't that be useful in identifying whether a
>particular ontology was applicable in a any given situation? Has any
>research been done on how particular aspects of a purpose inform better
>ontology construction (i.e. perhaps incorporating desired aspects of the
>outcome into the modeling methodology)?
>
>Any pointers or comments would be appreciated.
>--
>M. David Allen
>Booz | Allen | Hamilton
>(703) 377-1498 (Office)
>(804) 787-0289 (Mobile)
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
>
>
>
> (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
|