Re: em shared vocabulary

> Guido


I am really interested in understanding the suggestions about resource



> Note that the current model formally means that every Person, Fund, and
> Equipment is a Resource, which is false.


I really would like to understand why the above is false, as it looks pretty
true to me...

I am particularly interested in understanding what problems are there in
modelling every resource as a resource, and what advantages would there be
in doing otherwise

please explain more... thanks


PDM

>
>
>
> C
>
> Model and the description were modified a while back (attached). Renato is
> going to incorporate them in the draft for your review. “Resource” is
> modeled  a bit differently now. See if it better serves the prupose.
> Regards,
> Mandana
>
>
> *From:* public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org [mailto:
> public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *paola.dimaio@gmail.com*
> Sent:* Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:19 AM*
> To:* Guido Vetere*
> Cc:* public-xg-eiif*
> Subject:* Re: em shared vocabulary
>
>
> Thanks a lot Guido
>
> what I am trying to do here (purely from my vocabulary viewpoint) is to
> reconcile the ontological process  aimed to conceptualize/abstract the  EM
> scenarios (which are very important, and so far DOLCE seems to have done
> very well), with the real world expectation fo someone who is bleeding to
> death and needs unambiguous commitment of a specific resource NOW!
>
> From  that point of view , 'Service as a ‘promise’, i.e., roughly, a
> description of a commitment'  may not be enough, as would expect 'an
> ambulance service to be delivered within the shoftest possible time after
> the 999 call, and not roughly whenever it becomes available, for example.
>
> Capisci?
>
> Not that I have a clue as to how to do that..... but at least we are making
> a start eh?
>
> more questions follow
>
> PDM
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Guido Vetere <*gvetere@it.ibm.com*<gvetere@it.ibm.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Paola, as I said, I would model Resource as a Relational role.
> Syntactically, it could be an OWL Property whose domain is Service (whatever
> it is) and whose range is defined on the union of Person and Artefact (and
> Funds?). Of course, if you want, you can also draw a specific Class to
> represent that range, however this would have no formal import.
> As for Service, please consider that the idea of splitting the class
> (concrete process and its description) is mine, and has nothing to do with
> DOLCE itself. By the way, I was with Nicola Guarino at a conference last
> week; he said that a Service is a ‘promise’, i.e., roughly, a description of
> a commitment.
>
> Cordiali Saluti, Best Regards,
>
> Guido Vetere
> Manager & Research Coordinator, IBM Center for Advanced Studies Rome
> -----------------------
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> via Sciangai 53, 00144 Rome,
> Italy
> -----------------------
> mail:     *gvetere@it.ibm.com* <gvetere@it.ibm.com>
> phone: +39 06 59662137
> mobile: +39 335 7454658
>
>
>   *paola.dimaio@gmail.com* <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
> Sent by: *public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org* <public-xg-eiif-request@w3.org>
>
> 26/03/2009 17.35
>
>   To
> public-xg-eiif <*public-xg-eiif@w3.org* <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>>  cc
>   Subject
> Re: em shared vocabulary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Just to reiterate this point below  (rubbing it in actually)
> that the relationship between capability and resource is inextricable in
> operations
>
> I get an excerpt from one of our current working documents pasted below,
> which seems to be in contradiction with the
> DOLCE  analysis (contained in the same document)
>
> in the WHO section it says:
>
>    * Capability Properties: WorkingSector (to specify the nature of
> services that can be provided), resource
>    * Relationship with: Resource
>
> Resource represents tangible items and people that are used to respond to
> an incident.
>
>    * Resource Properties: Equipment (vehicles, communication facilities,
> etc.), People (human force), Fund (any financial support), Supplies
>    * Relationship with: locationInformation (to trace the resources in
> emergency operations)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 8:12 PM, <*paola.dimaio@gmail.com*<paola.dimaio@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> I am finally jotting down some definitions of the terms used in the
> framework document/diagram, to append to the final report, and as the basis
> for shared vocabulary work among different teams. I face a series of
> disparate and difficult issues, I may follow up with a few emails to request
> inputs on specifics
>
> This is forcing me to take a closer look at the latest version of the
> draft, *
> **http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/eiif/XGR-framework-20090220/*<http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/eiif/XGR-framework-20090220/>
>
> and I have some questions/comments that come up
>
> I am looking at some of the notes regarding the DOLCE conceptualization of
> our framework, and I wonder how much of these notes should be reflected in
> our vocabulary, and how much should not be (whereby the description of the
> conceptualization is not relevant to the actual meaning of the term)
>
> for example
>
>
> re. DOLCE definitions *
> ServiceService, in a concrete sense, can be seen as a Process, i.e. a
> perdurant (event) whose temporal parts may have different qualities (e.g.
> agreement, delivery, and conclusion). By looking at the attributes of the W3
> class, however, it seems that the concept aims at modelling abstract and
> informative qualities such as Title and Description. To represent both
> informative properties and spatial-temporal ones under DOLCE’s
> conceptualization, Service might be split in two different classes:
> “ServiceDescription” (InformationObject) and “ServiceProcess” representing
> the concrete processes of service’s execution. *
>
> I dont understand what ;'service' stands for , can someone provide some
> examples?  for me service is the provision of a resource, or a capability
> is that something else?  is it intended as 'emergency service is the
> provision of emergency supplies?'
>
> *
> Capability*
> *Capability is used in W3 for representing the kind of actions Persons and
> Organization should be able to perform. This should be represented in DOLCE
> by an AbstractQuality (qualities inherent in non-physical endurants) whose
> value should range over a suitable abstract region, to be introduced.
> According to DOLCE, however, this would limit the ascription of (instances
> of) this class to non-physical endurants.*
> I dont' know about DOLCE, but capability is the ability to provide resource
> (be it material supply or service , and which requires resources and
> infrastructure)
> Capability is directly related to resource availability, (not sure what you
> mean by 'abstract' here)
>
> cf.:
> Originally a military term which includes the aspects of personnel,
> equipment, training, planning and operational doctrine. Now used to mean a
> demonstrable capacity or ability to respond to and recover from a particular
> threat or hazard.*
> **www.preparingforemergencies.gov.uk/more_info/glossary.shtm*<http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=X&start=6&oi=define&ei=-TnJSdTMOpDDjAe67f3FAw&sig2=JUYJ1Hbt3NQwnpZdwiAY7w&q=http://www.preparingforemergencies.gov.uk/more_info/glossary.shtm&usg=AFQjCNEk-oSR1nhceJFTRxg3lhfyuB-Apw>
>
> *
> Resource*
> *It is not immediately clear what Resource could be in terms of DOLCE
> categories. The class looks like the union of three other classes Equipment,
> People, and Fund. Intuitively, Resource stands for any concrete thing that
> can be instrumental to the process of delivering a Service. It is
> questionable, however, whether a specific class is really needed here. *
> Again, I dont know from the ontologist viewpoint, but from the operational
> viewpoint, resource is essential to the supply process,
> I cannot see how we can get away with modelling/representing it
> he 'categorization' of resources depends on the approach, they can be
> grouped according to the functional/operational role (say medical resource
> versus transport)  or material (medicine, food,) vs  intangible (know how,
> skills, knowledge, experience, competence) and so on,
> But it needs to be represented in any lexical, semantic and ontological
> schema that revolves around the supply of resources  (or please explain
> otherwise)
>
> cheers
>
> PDM
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paola Di Maio,
> ****************************************
> Forthcoming
> IEEE/DEST 09 Collective Intelligence Track (deadline extended)
>
> i-Semantics 2009, 2 - 4 September 2009, Graz, Austria. *
> www.i-semantics.tugraz.at* <http://www.i-semantics.tugraz.at/>
>
> SEMAPRO 2009, Malta*
> **http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/CfPSEMAPRO09.html*<http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/CfPSEMAPRO09.html>
> **************************************************
> Mae Fah Luang Child Protection Project, Chiang Rai Thailand
>
>
>
>
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI)
> Cap. Soc. euro 400.001.359
> C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
> Società soggetta all’attività di direzione e coordinamento di International
> Business Machines Corporation
>
> (Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise above)
>
>
>
> --
> Paola Di Maio,
> ****************************************
> Forthcoming
> IEEE/DEST 09 Collective Intelligence Track (deadline extended)
>
> i-Semantics 2009, 2 - 4 September 2009, Graz, Austria. *
> www.i-semantics.tugraz.at* <http://www.i-semantics.tugraz.at/>
>
> SEMAPRO 2009, Malta*
> **http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/CfPSEMAPRO09.html*<http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/CfPSEMAPRO09.html>
>
> **************************************************
> Mae Fah Luang Child Protection Project, Chiang Rai Thailand
>
> [attachment "W3 Model Version 1 8.jpg" deleted by Guido Vetere/Italy/IBM]
> [attachment "W3 Model Description v2.doc" deleted by Guido Vetere/Italy/IBM]
>
>
>
> IBM Italia S.p.A.
> Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI)
> Cap. Soc. euro 400.001.359
> C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
> Società soggetta all’attività di direzione e coordinamento di International
> Business Machines Corporation
>
> (Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise above)
>



-- 
Paola Di Maio,
****************************************
Forthcoming
IEEE/DEST 09 Collective Intelligence Track (deadline extended)

i-Semantics 2009, 2 - 4 September 2009, Graz, Austria.
www.i-semantics.tugraz.at

SEMAPRO 2009, Malta
http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/CfPSEMAPRO09.html
**************************************************
Mae Fah Luang Child Protection Project, Chiang Rai Thailand