| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
John,I seem to have conveyed the wrong message. I agree with your statements except for the precise meaning of 'requirements.' I sense that you use the term to mean more like 'post conditions for satisfaction' whereas most people (and majority of PM's) use the term to mean the functions and features of an envisioned system regardless of the symptoms of the problematic situation.
Jack Ring----- Original Message ----- From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
To: "Jack Ring" <jring@amug.org> Cc: <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>; <standard-upper-ontology@IEEE.ORG> Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 10:43 AM Subject: Re: Developing a standard for an ontology registry/repository
Jack, To a certain extent, that's true: > The project management point of view is useful for small, > relatively static situations but the holistic system point > of view is essential for situations high in extent, variety > and ambiguity. > > Aren't we faced with the latter? But various people involved with these ontology projects have been debating, analyzing, building, examining, and studying ontologies, applications of ontologies, and requirements for sharing and reusing them for over 20 years. The SUO project and mailing list was started in 2000, and there seems to be a consensus that a registry/repository system would be a useful product. We have some vague proposals along those lines, and the time seems ripe for developing them further. John