[Person-ontology] Fwd: OWL for exchanging ontologies
paola.dimaio at gmail.com
paola.dimaio at gmail.com
Fri Oct 26 20:23:03 PDT 2007
Hi Pat
thanks for the insights below. I agree in principle with most of what you
say
Although i would generally recommend one or more ontology engineering
methods are adopted, even only as guidelines,
for a small ontology like person your suggested approach may be enough
I am a bit more rigorous when it comes to in what sequence things are done,
coming from a
structured methods background, the task hierarchy may be important
and I would argue that following good practice we should try to first
describe the person properties and their relationship and naming
conventions, as well as discuss (discuss = plain english) the various
representation and formalization options, before writing the ontology in one
or another language itself. And first, absolute first, must be requirements
analysis
as you and I already discussed and partly agreed on the Ontolog list a while
back
>
> Construct an ontology. It almost does not matter exactly where you
> start, but either the very top (most general) or the very bottom
> (data) is not usually a good place. If you don't know how to start,
> one way is to get a bunch of domain experts together in a room and
> have them idea-storm, e.g. by constructing a concept map together.
> (This needs someone to take notes.) However, Im not sure what a
> domain expert on the topic of people would be.
we can easily use some free mind mapping soffware and get the good people
on this list
to do that kind of brainstorming remotely, would that work for you?
>re. broken higgins
> >
> >if the semantics is broken, is probably because some engineering step
> >has gone wrong
>
> Its more likely because the authors of the ontology of the axioms
> didn't fully grok the purpose of the formalism they were using. In
> the HOWL case, the problem seems to be that they felt unable to use
> XSD as it stands, so 'reconstructed' it as an OWL ontology. But the
> entire point of using OWL and the XML standards is to, well, conform
> to standards: so to re-engineer one of the basic standards seems like
> a bad first step. (Was that 'root cause analysis', I wonder?)
some root cause analysis, typically every bad step is caused by another bad
step
and you continue the analysis til you find the first bad step then you know
what to kill selectively once the root bad step is removed, the problem
fixes itself.
Quality engineering, hmmm. Would that have any relationship to Total
> Quality Management?
TQM is a QE method. QE is a discipline in its own right, albeit not too
well known
I once was obliged to take a training course in
> TQM, since when I have never been able to take anything with the word
> "quality" in it seriously. What is your definition of "quality" ?
I assure you, its serious. You may argue that ontology is not strictly
software, but it is also software, and the entire ontology engineering
lifecycle is equivalent to softwrae engineering lifecycle in most
established methodologies
There are ieee and ISO standard for quality in software related products -
I think 9042 or something (dont have my notes here) Quality is not just one
thing, but the combination of many factors I can give the full set of
lectures for those who are intersted (one semester)!
:-)
from some generic web source
Are you or Software QA involves the entire software development PROCESS -
monitoring and improving the process, making sure that any agreed-upon
standards and procedures are followed, and ensuring that problems are found
and dealt with. It is oriented to 'prevention'.
search for quality assurance Nasa, I work with thoe guidelines
(appropriately
scaled down to fit the mission requirements) they take quality seriously
anyone on this list going to be at Busan btw
Pat, see if you can punch out a plan based on the good suggestions above
I'd love to see this happen
PDM
>
> >p
> >
> >On 10/26/07, Pat Hayes <phayes at ihmc.us> wrote:
> >> > > I say that before encoding ontology, there is some groundwork to
> be
> >> >>done in plain english.
> >> >
> >> >OK. What?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >write spec - (lots of subtasks there)
> >>
> >> OK, perhaps then you can tell me what a spec of
> >> an ontology should look like. I have never seen
> >> one.
> >>
> >> > OWL is not a programming code, and
> >> >formalizing knowledge is not like programming.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >It's a 'metaphor'
> >>
> >> ? WHat is a metaphor for what here? YOu have lost
> >> me. If you are using programming (esp. management
> >> of large software projects) as a metaphor for how
> >> to build ontologies, I thinkn you are using a bad
> >> (= highly misleading) metaphor.
> >>
> >> > - but I think you and I do not share the same background, therefore
> >> >you tend to misinterpret my constructs
> >> >regularlty. I wish I could express myself using
> >> >mathematical formulas
> >>
> >> Well, I do read and write English reasonably proficiently.
> >>
> >> >Listing relevant facts and topic areas, and
> >> >first application areas, might be well worth trying, however.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >sounds like a good start - diagrams are useful
> >> >to some people, and not so useful to others
> >> >but the fact that they are not useful to you,
> >> >does not mean that you have the right to
> >> >wipe them off the project
> >>
> >> True, I don't think I have any authority to wipe
> >> anything. However I do have the right to ignore
> >> them and requests to draw them, which I shall do.
> >>
> >> > >
> >> >>so, shall we start? (before worrying where it ends)
> >> >
> >> >Are there any facts about people that any of us are likely to *not*
> agree
> >> on?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >I can answer that after you tell me what the
> >> >facts are, Where are the 'assertions'
> >> >of this ontology?
> >>
> >> You have already said that you want to do all
> >> this BEFORE any assertions have been written. The
> >> assertions ARE the ontology.
> >>
> >> >so that we can discuss them (apols if I they are
> >> >somewhere that I have not seen, but ifs so, they
> >> >should be pointed to when referring to them)
> > > >
> >> >
> >> > >also, did nt you say that somethin in Higgins is broken, maybe
> >> >>that's something that should be worked on before thinking of coding
> >> >
> >> >It was the coding that was 'broken', but maybe 'highly idiosyncratic'
> >> >would be a better description.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >I see, syntax then - was wondering about that
> >>
> >> No, not syntax: semantics. HOWL is syntactically correct OWL.
> >>
> >> Pat
> >>
> >> >
> >> >thanks
> >> >
> >> >PDM
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>Paola
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
> >> >40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> >> >Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> >> >FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
> >> >phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
> >> >< http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes>http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >Paola Di Maio
> >> >School of IT
> >> ><http://www.mfu.ac.th> www.mfu.ac.th
> >> >*********************************************
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
> >> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> >> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> >> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
> >> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Paola Di Maio
> >School of IT
> >www.mfu.ac.th
> >*********************************************
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************
--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://idcommons.net/pipermail/person-ontology/attachments/20071027/e5ad0ecf/attachment.htm
More information about the Person-ontology
mailing list