RE: [ontac-dev] RE: [ontac-forum] RE: Shall we start? - sub (10)

["Roy Roebuck" <Roy.Roebuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Azamat.

 

I appreciate your feedback.  Attached is a file containing diagrams and chronological references that I prepared for the possibility of responding to another rebuttal.  Even though that thankfully did not come, I’ll still provide you the file, which provides diagrams arranged in a rough chronological order from their inception, with a brief descriptive note on the page following each diagram.

 

As to stepping forward, I’ve actually posted what I consider relevant input to this group, about by “general ontology” approach, from October 05 when I was asked to join the group by the chairman of the SICoP, Brand Niemann.  He is one who has observed that my approach should be considered for the foundation for the next FEA, if I might paraphrase his words.  My basic suggestion, at http://colab.cim3.net/forum//ontac-forum/2005-10/msg00058.html, was followed by additional comments and my replies to others over the past few months.  I’ve just not had much to say to those debating the depths of ontology, which I consider off of the “FEA common-semantic-model deliverable” topic. 

 

In addition, I don’t know half the words some in this forum have used. If anything, this group needs its own controlled vocabulary, thesaurus, taxonomy, conceptual model (concept map, object-role-model, IDEF1x data model, etc.), … strong ontology, etc., borrowing from Dr. Orbst’s two recent presentations on “Ontology Spectrum”.

 

Regarding the attached file:

• slides 1-3 represent my cited “fishnet” general object model concept
• slide 4 represents my cited “wheel of knowledge” concept
• slides 5-12 represent my cited “enterprise management” 2^nd order logic approach I developed in graduate school and have since applied to my own work and for a few employers and clients.
• slides 13-15 represent my inclusion of “value-chain” axiology concepts
• slide 16-19 represents my approach applied to the evolution of the OMB FEA since 2002, illustrating the types of “business services” my approach can enable, the underlying metaschema for that approach (tailored to an OMB FEA view), a baseline plan template for applying my approach to extending the OMB FEA into a full enterprise management system, and a correlation of the concepts of OMB FEA, SOA, services, capabilities, etc. with my broader metaschema.

 

 

 

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: Azamat [mailto:abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 6:09 PM
To: Roy Roebuck
Subject: Re: [ontac-dev] RE: [ontac-forum] RE: Shall we start? - sub (10)

 

Roy,

 

Impressive content and service list i found on your web site.The concepts of One Information World System and GEM methodology is very close to the ideas of the Global Intelligent Internet and UFO documented in my forthcoming book: ''Standard Ontology for Machines and People''. Your defintion of management in terms of comlexity, diversity, dynamic system, and control is another deed. Certainly you should step forward much earlier; for we hear the same people with the same stale, moth-eaten ideas about taxonomy, semantics modelling, meaning, etc., having nothing to do with reality and which hardly ever meet your concern to: 

support U.S. Federal Government organizations' efforts to attain Level 5

across the board in that assessment framework.

 

Kind regards,

Azamat Abdoullaev

----- Original Message -----

From: Roy Roebuck

To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion

Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:17 PM

Subject: RE: [ontac-dev] RE: [ontac-forum] RE: Shall we start? - sub (10)

 

Hi Azamat:

 

Excellent rebuttal, if you're assuming I am without experience in the domain being pursued by ONTAC. 

 

But that assumption would be erroneous.  I am encouraging this COSMO discussion group within the ONTACWG to “get on with it” because I’ve been modeling and reasoning on this for a very long time, and I see a clear path forward to a useful and practical EA common semantic model (i.e., COSMO), that I’ve traveled several times before, where some apparently see sand, pebbles, sticks, trees, and boulders over which they must cautiously step. 

 

I would submit that my "reasoning" on the subject of a general ontology for enterprise management, which encompasses enterprise architecture, is fairly significant, and has been my personal and career focus for over 48 years, and has been published in U.S. government channels since 1987, and on the web since 1994.  It is now understood by a larger audience.

 

·   My own "knowledge representation model", that I call my "generalized object model" which I now document as the M3 layer of a four layer architecture metamodel, dates from 1957, when I was six, when I envisioned the world as many layered fishing-nets with knots (i.e., nodes) and connecting-lines.  It predates the OpenGroup and Object Management Group (OMG) object metaschema by about 40 years, and is more extensive and expressive that that now-standard metaschema.  

·   My own "wheel of knowledge", which I developed in 1965 at the age of 14 as a tool to help me determine what I should study in college to attain my goals of socio-technical integration, predates the Encyclopedia Britannica Propedia outline of knowledge by several years.  

·   My 2nd Order Logic-based ontology for enterprise management dates from 1982, where I designed it as the theme for most of my Master's level education projects on “whole-enterprise management” and as the mechanism by which I thrived in my then-current assignment as the Assistant Resource Manager of a 16,000 person US Army Command in West Germany.

·   My axiology-based extension to my enterprise management methodology, metaschema, and technology incorporated the aspects of value-chain analysis and management in 1992.

·   My general ontology approach was used as the EA framework, metaschema, methodology, and technology for the recently (2005) completed U.S. Federal Executive Branch (FEB) continuity communication enterprise architecture (CCEA) project, whose purpose was to help establish and maintain continuity of the mission essential functions of the FEB under all circumstances.  The briefings on the project completion status to the U.S. CIO Council’s (CIOC) Chief Architect’s Forum (CAF) and Architecture and Infrastructure Committee (AIC), then to the Industry Advisory Council (IAC) EA Shared Interest Group (SIG), and then to the most recent SICoP Conference led to several recommendations that that approach be submitted as a foundation for the future OMB FEA, and led to my being requested to participate in the ONTACWG formed by SICoP under Pat’s leadership.

 

Note that I am not a logician or an ontologist by education, training, or interest.  I’ve been a “get it done” manager, analyst, and technologist my entire career, and I’ve almost always done “it” successfully.  You can read more about my interest and experience in these areas at http://www.one-world-is.com , and I believe you’ll find my own ontology approach, and my purpose, is similar to yours.  I appreciate your efforts and find your web site at http://www.encyclopedic-intelligence.com/ most impressive, as corresponding-to, adding depth, and validating my own, and I appreciate a similar appreciation, or at least tolerance of my efforts.

 

 

Thanks.

 

Roy

 

-----Original Message-----
From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Azamat
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 12:51 PM
To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
Subject: Re: [ontac-dev] RE: [ontac-forum] RE: Shall we start? - sub (10)

 

[RR]

>I am not an authority for this group.

...

>Enough philosophy! Let us build something useful for the FEA community,

using semantic technologies, quickly!  Let us work with tools, not

debate the science and philosphical underpinnings of the tools.

 

Roy,

Then here some useful poetry for you from W. Auden:

''Those who will not reason

Perish in the act

Those who will not act

Perish for that reason.''

 

The meaning of this is always think before doing, acting, or stating

something.

Any good machine model (theoretical account, or framework) is a

representation of pieces of reality, its complex entities, processes and

relations. The intelligent computer programs are to be based on a semantic

model of real systems so that to be capable not only to properly react to

environmental stimuli but also effectively reason about the world.

 

Repeat again the substance of my message:

[any common ontological and semantic modelling not directly dealing with

reality, its complex systems and dynamic relationships, is a mindless waste

of time, money and effort].

 

Azamat Abdoullaev

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Roy Roebuck" <Roy.Roebuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 6:10 PM

Subject: RE: [ontac-dev] RE: [ontac-forum] RE: Shall we start? - sub (10)

 

 

Hi:

 

I am not an authority for this group.  But to again inform and focus

those WG participants outside the Federal Enterprise Architecture

community that recently gave rise to the ONTAC WG  -  the Common

Semantic Model that the ONTAC WG's founding authority [i.e., the SICoP

(U.S. Federal CIO Council's (CIOC) Architecture and Infrastructure

Committee (AIC) Semantic Interoperability Community of Practice)]

expects from the COSMO facet of the ONTAC WG effort is a "semantic

model" that encompassses U.S. Federal enterprise management and the

supporting enterprise architecture efforts and capability, as now

bounded by the OMB FEA Assessment Framework, V2, released this month.

If the ontology being discussed and "developed" by this WG does not

support U.S. Federal Government organizations' efforts to attain Level 5

across the board in that assessment framework, then I submit that it

does not need to be part of this discussion.  A semantic mechanism to

provide interoperability of FEA efforts, metaschema, methodology, and

modeling and repository technology is needed - that's all.

 

Enough philosophy! Let us build something useful for the FEA community,

using semantic technologies, quickly!  Let us work with tools, not

debate the science and philosphical underpinnings of the tools.

 

Roy

 

-----Original Message-----

From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Azamat

Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:56 AM

To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion

Subject: Re: [ontac-dev] RE: [ontac-forum] RE: Shall we start? - sub

(10)

 

Patrick,

 

We all know that you are trying to do a good thing. But reading your

manifesto is producing more questions than answers. Below just few of

them

instigated by your folowing basic statements.

 

[PC]

>There have been several proposals in ONTACWG discussion for what might

>serve as a the beginnings of a Common Semantic Model.

> 

 

Please expound a Common Semantic Model of What?:

1. of Reality, the World, its basic aspects, levels, features,

components,

factors, or meanings;

2. of human knowledge, its basic features, components, factors, and

meanings;

3. or of natural language, its basic namespace composition, structure,

features, senses and meanings.

 

>It is possible that one of the existing upper ontologies could be

adopted

>as a whole. Thus far there has not been general support for that

strategy.

>Perhaps the complexity of those systems is not yet balanced by

demonstrated

>publicly available and impressive applications; the needed motivating

>factors may be absent.

< 

 

Another question arising is how can you expect something (funding) from

the

taxonomies telling reasoning applications nothing essential about the

real

world, existence, being, and reality, its nonlinear complexity,

composition,

dynamics, aspects, levels, systems, and, especially, (causal )

relationships?

 

For missing the class of relationships as a basic pillar of reality is

missing such significant phenomena as process, causality, order,

difference,

organization, complexity, hierarchy, structure, control, information,

communication, etc. Lack of relational entity as a key denizen of the

world

is a main reason why neither of the taxonomies imposed can't be used as

a

standard, nor they can be employed as the complementary parts of a

whole.

 

As a test case, try and adapt any of the ontologies for developing an

integrative (ontological) theory of complex nonlinear causal systems. Or

try

just to imagine any of your proposed entity models for creating the

class of

reasoning applications dealing with dynamic complexity in nature, mind

or

society, not speaking of making the modeling agents capable to predict

the

behavior of the world, its complex nonlinear hierarchical networked

systems.

Ontology is not a catalogue of categories but a scientific theory of

reality, its levels and aspects, composition and properties, states and

changes as well as the entity constraining fundamental relationships

(downward and upward causality known as part-whole relationships,

space-time

relationships, causal connections, etc.).

There is one rational way to relate the Real World (W) and the Software

Computing World (C), via the Unified Framework Ontology (UFO), as the

mapping scheme UFO: W arrow C. Since, instead of descriptive ontological

 

models, we must be after a standard theory of real entities and

relationships, their properties and value types as the realistic,

prescriptive and predictive ontology  intended for scientific, cognitive

and

linguistic engineering.

 

>WordNet has also been suggested as a model, but is not itself used for

>logical inference.

 

The WordNet is the most rich and comprehensive lexical taxonomy. You

can't

do better common semantic model of entity names than logically

encompassing

the whole content of WordNet, as it has been done in USECS. Only then,

having developed the (WordNet) intergrative ontological context, one may

 

take on the difficult task of automatic processing (building, alligning,

 

mapping, merging, intergrating, querying, and what not)  of domain

content

(or Web data) with specific reasoning mechanisms and inference rules,

thus

making all sorts of specific ontological and semantic applications.

 

Regards,

Azamat Abdoullaev

http://www.eis.com.cy

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Cassidy, Patrick J." <pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx>

To: "ONTAC Forum" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:21 AM

Subject: FW: [ontac-dev] RE: [ontac-forum] RE: Shall we start? - sub

(10)

 

 

 

There is a question from Ken Ewell which I think touches on a topic of

broad interest:

 

>[PC]  It will be easier to get agreement, the simpler the core is, but

>in order to serve the proposed function of enabling interoperability

by

>providing a set of concepts with which definitions of complex concepts

>can be specified, it will have to have a certain irreducible level of

>complexity.  Just how complex it can get and still gather a wide range

>of acceptance among user communities is not obvious to me.  But over

>the years I have heard many - actually most - ontologists say that

they

>would use another representation if there was a good reason to do so.

> 

> 

[KE] Would those same ontologist choose to interact using a different

language?

The one that affirms would make for a very interesting, and most

likely,

enlightening case.

 

[PC] Actually, yes, if there were any benefit to do so.  We have ample

precedent of people taking great trouble to learn a natural language

which is not their native tongue in order to communicate with others.

Every international scientific conference I have attended was conducted

in English, and included speakers who obviously were not comfortable

with our language, but took the trouble to learn it because it was the

medium required to communicate with those they wanted to communicate

with.  People take a lot of trouble to learn complex programming

languages, because there are examples of programs using those languages

that do very useful things.  Conversely, if one already knows a

programming language, it takes a lot more motivation, such as examples

of things a new language can do that the old language can't, that will

induce people to learn a second language.  As far as ontologists go, I

will use **any** language that has a large user base and a reasonable

number of public sample applications.  I have spoken with others having

a similar attitude.

 

The whole game is motivation.  Up to this point there has been little

if any reason for people to painstakingly learn the details of existing

upper ontology systems because (1) they are complex and difficult to

learn; (2) they are not used enough for third-party developers to

create utilities to make them easier to use and to extend their use;

(3) there are few if any publicly available demonstration programs that

make it clear that the ontologies will do enough useful things to

justify the investment of time in learning them; and (4) since there

are few reasoning systems available that already use that ontology,

there is mostly no communications benefit right now in taking the time

to tune one's own system to use it.

 

Those who have relatively simple reasoning or representation tasks to

perform may take one look at something as complex as Cyc and conclude -

perhaps justifiably for the immediate future - that the costs of

learning to use it greatly outweigh the benefits.  So they make their

own, simpler knowledge classification system.  What is lost is the

potential for interoperability with other systems.  But at present it

is only a potential.  The upper ontologies and the Common Semantic

Model, useful in themselves, are only essential when one wants one's

reasoning system to interoperate semantically with another's (or one

organization's different databases to interact with each other).  So a

COSMO is **essential** only if you have a sophisticated reasoning

system and want to interact with others.  Getting to the point where

there are enough local practical reasoning systems to begin to gain the

enormous benefits of the networking effect via a COSMO is a slow

process.  When there are few local reasoning systems that need to

communicate, the motivation to invest heavily in communication is

absent.  That is the current situation.

 

Nevertheless, it should be quite clear to anyone who has taken any time

to examine the simpler examples of reasoning with ontologies that the

technology will inevitably be extended to provide powerful reasoning

systems with broad and very important capabilities.  As with a

programming language, there is a big difference between developing a

small test program and a large and complex operating system.  Years of

intensive development involving many people may be required.

Developing an impressive reasoning system will be, I suspect, more

complex than developing an operating system like Windows.  But many of

the components are available.  Predicting the timetable is risky

because it depends a lot on a number of factors.

 

Will people take the time to learn and use a complex upper ontology?

Someone else's ontology?  Someone else's ontology language?  Yes, for

the same reasons that they take the time to learn English and Java.

When examples are available to demonstrate the benefits of using a new

language, they will undertake the effort.

 

But developing a widely used Common Semantic Model is not quite like

anything else that has been done before, and analogies can hide

significant differences.  Developing applications of ontologies is a

more complicated task than developing some simple program in a

programming language, and no community speaks ontology as a native

language.  To develop the "installed user base" that will encourage

increasing numbers of people to use, test, and improve a common

ontology may have to proceed in incremental steps of increasing

complexity.  Fortunately, we don't have to get universal agreement,

just a large enough base of users to form a self-sustaining community

that can share results with a common conceptual language and help it

evolve and improve.  The process could be greatly accelerated if there

were a significant source of funding that could support a large

representative group of users and developers oriented to a single

ontology, to get a variety of impressive applications and utilities to

make the system easy to use.  But such funding has not yet

materialized.  It is possible that some influential organization like

Microsoft will decide to create their own version for their own

purposes and by monopoly power force the rest of us to use it.

Windology anyone?

 

There is another benefit of a Common Semantic Model beyond immediate

use in applications, and that is to serve as a common paradigm of

meaning that can help accelerate development of more powerful reasoning

systems.  Reasoning with contexts will be necessary to control the

explosion of inference that will occur with first-order logic on even

moderately complex knowledge bases.  To meaningfully compare

alternative reasoning methods, and learn what tactics work, it will be

essential to make comparisons using the same realistically large

knowledge base, so that the knowledge variables will be controlled and

the reasoning itself form the subject of experiment.  The COSMO can

perform that function, for any community wishing to perform a

comparative evaluation of reasoning methods and to reuse each other's

results.

 

One thing ONTACWG can do to help is to become a community with a Common

Semantic Model and develop it in incremental steps.  At each stage the

investment of time in learning how to use it might be commensurate with

the demonstrated or immediately realizable benefits of the model at

that stage of development.  In this way, those who are not convinced

enough of the benefits of complex ontology systems may have less

complex systems available that are easier to learn and evaluate.  This

is a model for development that is propelled by a combination of the

complexity of the topic and the absence of direct funding for a broad

community effort.  Whether it can succeed will depend on whether our

volunteer participants will focus on the concrete details of

construction and evaluation of the Common Semantic Model in its

increasingly complex and increasingly capable stages.

 

There have been several proposals in ONTACWG discussion for what might

serve as a the beginnings of a Common Semantic Model.  It is possible

that one of the existing upper ontologies could be adopted as a whole.

Thus far there has not been general support for that strategy.  Perhaps

the complexity of those systems is not yet balanced by demonstrated

publicly available and impressive applications; the needed motivating

factors may be absent.  WordNet has also been suggested as a model, but

is not itself used for logical inference.

 

All suggested approaches are welcome.  Providing specific computational

resources to support an approach will probably increase the chances

that other members will take an interest.  There are some commercial

programs that can be useful, and references to those can be helpful,

but if they are expensive it will probably be necessary to provide

powerful motivation by specific examples of utility in order to induce

others to part with their cash.

 

Right now the only specific small starter version of a COSMO that has

been proposed for ONTACWG is the merged top levels from OpenCyc, SUMO,

and DOLCE (with a few elements from BFO and ISO15926), which I put on

our site at:

   http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CosmoWG/TopLevel2

. . . and is available in OWL form at:

 

http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/reference/ProtegeOntologies

/COSMOtopOWL03.owl

 

 

Discussions about this and related topics are proceeding now within the

ONTAC-dev email reflector.  to subscribe go to:

       http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev

 

 

Pat

 

Patrick Cassidy

MITRE Corporation

260 Industrial Way

Eatontown, NJ 07724

Mail Stop: MNJE

Phone: 732-578-6340

Cell: 908-565-4053

Fax: 732-578-6012

Email: pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx

 

 

_________________________________________________________________

Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-dev/

To Post: mailto:ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:

http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev/

Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/

Community Wiki:

http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatin

gWG

 

_________________________________________________________________

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/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinating

WG

 

 

_________________________________________________________________

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/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinating

WG

 

_________________________________________________________________

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

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________

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

---

_________________________________________________________________
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

ONTAC and SICOP Handouts2.pdf
Description: ONTAC and SICOP Handouts2.pdf

_________________________________________________________________
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)