Re: Abstract Core Ontology for SWSL Processes

At 05:16 PM 16/01/2004 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
>I entirely agree.  Notice that the same overall framework applies both to 
>'processes' and to 'objects/entities'.  Some things can be looked at in 
>either way, in fact, and the same framework applies to them independently 
>of whether you classify them as object-like or process-like.


You might not be surprised then to hear that we apply the same 
"Nodes-Constraints-Annotations" ontology to any kind of synthesised 
artifact - designs, configurations, plans etc where nodes may be the parts 
of the artifact - not just temporal processes where nodes are activities.

I want to keep this abstract and simple and something that is clearly 
intuitive, intelligible (to humans and systems) and very extensible.

I am desperately trying to avoid making this too close to what we have 
adopted after working on these topics over the last 30 years... but if you 
want the FULL story, we also add "Issues" into the mix - 
Issues-Nodes-Constraints-Annotations.  Issues are questions remaining 
concerning the artifact.  It lets you associate the results of partial 
development, outstanding requirements, results of analysis, etc with the 
synthesised object.  Recently we decided to go back to the roots of this 
terminology and adopt an ontology for these issues based on the decades of 
work on gIBIS and the work of Jeff Conklin/Al Sevlin and others on issue 
based design (7 question types). I have said to others.. to keep things 
simple in SWSL we might just treat issues as one type of annotation on the 
process model though.

Austin

Received on Saturday, 17 January 2004 06:24:56 UTC