Re: Ontologies for describing Enterprise Architectures
Jim,
I certainly agree with that point:
> I would agree that IEEE 1471 is the standard for
> enterprise architecture descriptions. However, I
> would question its relevance for describing Enterprise
> Architecture Ontologies. IMHO, IEE 1471, FEA, TOGAF and
> C4ISR are frameworks. The problem with a framework is
> that it does not provide explicit set of guidelines
> for creating definitions.
That is another good point:
> It has been my experience that EA projects rise and
> fall on the ability to reach consensus on definitions
> (e.g. objective, function, IS-A relationships,
> IS-Part-Of).
This leads to a suggestion of how the SUO should
proceed:
1. Before trying to reach agreement on an official
standard upper ontology, it would be much simpler
to standardize the definitions of certain terms
that are necessary to define any ontology at
any level.
2. Such a standardization would be a prerequisite for
any upper ontology, and it would be essential for
making it possible to merge any theories in a family
of ontologies or to select among possible alternatives.
Is-an-instance-of, Is-a-kind-of, and Is-a-subtype-of,
are three essential relations that I believe we can
reach consensus on rather quickly.
Is-a-part-of raises some serious questions because
there are many different axioms for mereology.
One solution is to take the most general definition
(i.e., the one with the smallest number of axioms)
as the primary, and to define a small hierarchy
of others that depend on which additional axioms
are accepted for each one.
But I'm not sure what you mean by "objective"
and "function". I understand the term "function"
in its mathematical sense, but people frequently
use the term in talking about the "function" of
a refrigerator. Trying to define "function" in
that sense is asking for quagmire duty.
And talking about the "objectives" of an enterprise
or some department of an enterprise is very important,
but very difficult to define. Just trying to define
"enterprise" is nontrivial. In fact, you probably
cannot define the notion of "enterprise" without
getting a good handle on the notion of "objective".
John