Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: Ontologies for describing Enterprise Architectures

Title: Message
Dear Jim,
 
You will see "architect" in my job title, which at least suggests that I am in this architecture game - probably correctly. Shell is certainly into architecture.
 
Some comments below.
 

Matthew West
Streamline Business Information Architect for Supply Chain Management
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@listserv.ieee.org [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I
Sent: 10 November 2004 15:57
To: 'standard-upper-ontology@listserv.ieee.org'
Subject: Ontologies for describing Enterprise Architectures

Folks,
 
    'Enterprise Architectures' are in vogue, but when a large organization has multiple subordinant organizations independently developing their own enterprise architectures, there barely relate.  
 
MW: A key word that goes with architecture is Governance. Architecture makes no sense except in the context in which it can be agreed and enforced. So organisations are NOT subordinate if they are doing their own thing, they are independent.
 
    Is anyone aware of the use of an ontology for describing an Enterprise Architecture?  Or better yet, use of a common domain ontology for describing multiple architectures?   
 
MW: There are two levels here, there is usually an information or data architecture, and this can be quite simply be based on an ontology. I notice from the FEA below that they are developing the Data Reference Model using IEC 11179. This is essentially a standard for defining dictionaries of terms. If you look at my recent paper on types of ontology, you will see I place this at the lowest level. Most people don't seem to see the benefits of going beyond this level - hence the paper.
 
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/Documents/Creating_ISO15926_Reference_Data.pdf
 
MW: This paper shows how you can use ISO 15926 to do the same sort of thing, but allowing development to higher levels.
 
MW: However, you seem to be suggesting that the enterprise architecture itself should be developed as an ontology. I can't say I have seen or heard of that being done, though it could be of course. I have seen that what we are doing in Shell could evolve into this, but we are a good way off yet.
 
    As an example, the U.S. Federal Enterprise Architecture is at http://www.feapmo.gov/fea.asp. 
 
MW: This looks to have the same sort of elements that we have. I would judge that we ahve more detail than this though.
 
Jim Schoening