R: Avoiding the pitfalls of ontology development
Jim,
in your note about ontology development you say:
"Most projects appear to be starting with *terms, not concepts*".
Some simple form of technology supported "concepts" sharing appears to be
used in some Corporate "values based" governance programs.
An interesting example of value based governance can be found in IBM
document "Our Values at Work" (November 2003). "Values" may be considered
in fact a nexus of core concepts that defines the "Corporate Culture", as a
general guide for action.
In logical terms, the basic idea is to identify a common set of concepts,
that is to say a system of core conjunctions, capable to influence actual
knowledge acquisition and sharing processes (the corporate culture).
Is up to the individual person to "makes a difference", adding economic
value in the contingent agent-patient situation, eventually taking care of
disjunctions with specific "concern" and minimum supervision.
This seems to suggest the idea to extend a similar action learning context
to symbolic knowledge representation systems design and implementation
processes, moving back and for in the pragmatic-semantic-syntax
technological nexus, confronting prototypes with practice.
Bottom line: one possible line of action to avoid to avoid "the pitfalls of
ontology development" perhaps is to move from shared "values" to identify
a set of *basic concepts* suitable to be formalized in computable
ontological/logical representation domain, in organizations interested in
sharing *common goals*, a standard upper ontology and common logic.
Best Regards.
Roberto Bordogna.
(Other notes will follow ASAP)
----- Original Message -----
From: James R Schoening <jim.s3@JUNO.COM>
To: <standard-upper-ontology@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 5:15 AM
Subject: Avoiding the pitfalls of ontology development
> All,
>
> At my employer (US Government), I'm finding more and more
> ontology projects, but I have to wonder about the quality and value of
> them. Some start with taxonomies and add some basic OWL relationships.
> Others appear to take abstract/complex terms (found in enterprise
> architectures) and add relationships. Others are such quick efforts, one
> has to wonder. Others are developed with little or no background or
> experience in ontology development. Most projects appear to be starting
> with terms, not concepts.
>
> Has anyone yet characterized this trend? Are there any names yet
> for this? What are the pitfalls? Has anyone written a paper on the 7
> pitfalls of ontology development? I need a polite way of helping these
> projects avoid such pitfalls.
>
> Jim Schoening