Re: Top-Down Bottom-Up Methodology

[Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@att.net>]

Google gives this:

| I didn't really think this out ahead of time, but it looks like
| I'll be alternating between bottom-up and top-down approaches,
| so maybe we can call this "both ends against the middle" or
| "burning the candle at both ends".  I started out last time
| with some concrete material for analysis, started out this
| time with an abstract formal analogy, so now let's return
| to the material world, and chunk up the matter into more
| digestible pieces, sentence by sentence.
|
| JA (04 Dec 2003) http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11978.html

Schoening, James R Mr CIV USA AMC wrote:
> Greetings SUO Subscribers,
>
> 	I remember this group discussing a methodology for extending
> an upper ontology that we referred to as 'Top-Down Bottom-Up.'
> Does anyone know of any papers written to describe this.  
>
> 	Here's more to describe what I'm talking about.  If we develop
> an ontology Bottom-Up, it may meet a specific need, but will not
> interoperate with other ontologies.  If we start with an upper ontology
> and extend just Top-Down, it probably won't meet the specific needs of a
> given system.  The solution is to do both at the same time and iterate
> until the ontology is both a clean top-down extension and also expresses
> the Bottom-up semantics needed by specific systems.   So, is anyone
> aware of any papers written to explain this?  (Software Engineering
> has something they call Top-Down Bottom-up, but it's a different
> concept for a different purpose.)
>
> Jim Schoening		
> U.S. Army Net-Centric Data Strategy Center of Excellence
> http://data.army.mil
> Voice: DSN 992-6820 or (732) 532-6820
> Cell: 732-996-0018	
> Email: James.Schoening@us.army.mil 

--

inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
knol: http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/3fkwvf69kridz/1