OWG minutes at the IW2018
Juan Llorens
Dear all,
I beg for excuses for the delay in sending the minutes of our meeting at last IW2018
I would like to start with my apologizes for the problem with the sound and webex at the event.
In meeting was not prepared to support a teleconf system, and it was not possible to ask for it at the time of the meeting.
Therefore, I tried to create my own system but didn’t work properly.
The meeting was successful. We had around 25 attendees, and many of them were new members.
This figure is good and bad news at the same time. Good news because we have new members, and bad news because we have very few persons active.
I enclose you the Presentation we made
The following remarkable issues popped up during.
1-) A very interesting researcher, Dr. Swaminathan Natarajan, contacted me, interested in finding collaboration for his research in A Conceptual Model of Systems Engineering
We have agreed that he´ll do a complete presentation of his work to the Ontology working group, and let’s hope that some of us feel the interest in collaborating with him.
I enclose the presentation he´ll do. Anabel will agree with him a good day and time (I presume that it will be sometime around 13:00 CET as Swami is in India and we want to cover attendees from US, Europe and Asia.
2-) A knowledge Management Case Study at Procter & Gamble session.
It was a superior success. I want to publicly thank Bob Sherman, from P&G and Hubertus Tummescheit, from Modelon, for their presentation. More than 60 persons in the room, (around 20% of the whole IW in our session, considering that there were around 15 sessions in parallel !!!). Brief Summary:
System Engineering for the Masses via Canonical Systems Model
Increasing product, supply chain and manufacturing complexity have driven industry to begin pursuing “Model Based System Engineering” (MBSE) tools and processes to optimize new product development. To this end, the past decade of development in systems engineering (SE) methods, standards and tools has resulted in many new foundational MBSE capabilities (e.g. ISO15288, SysML, FMI, OSLC, and countless other invaluable standards).
However, these capabilities have typically been applied in a bottom-up fashion to deliver benefits within the classic software and engineering disciplines. As a result, systems models often leave out many disciplines and fall short of the degree of abstraction required to support cross-discipline collaboration on the requirements of systems and the resulting models are often too solution-oriented to enable broad-scale re-use of the fundamental underlying technical knowledge in future, up-stream innovation work. Further, systems modeling tools generally lack the simple, but powerful user interface to provide basic answers to basic change impact and requirements trade-space questions posed by “the masses” (non-MBSE experts). Last, but not least, the complexity of the meta-models and user interfaces in use by today’s systems engineering tools require an “adoption activation energy” not available in today’s quarterly-profit-chasing mindset.
To tackle the above challenges, P&G partnered with leading-edge systems engineering method suppliers (ICTT and Big Lever), leading-edge tool suppliers (e.g. IBM, TomSawyer, The ReUse Company, Modelon, and Big Lever) and systems modeling tool configuration expertise (321gang). After two years of development and multiple pilots, we have taken a big step forward in providing the canonical systems modeling and analysis capabilities to deliver systems engineering capabilities to “the masses”. The resulting method and tools are usable by personnel at all levels of the enterprise, in all disciplines, throughout all phases of an initiative’s lifecycle. This presentation will review the key strategies and decisions behind the break-through new capability and some aspects of the solution will be demonstrated.
3-) Name change. Mike Celentano communicated us that the working group named Knowledge Management, initially assigned to develop the SE Handbook, was left and was going to be eliminated.
When I presented the proposal of a new WG around ontologies and knowledge management, as the KM WG was already taken, we decided to go for the OWG only. As the Knowledge Management name is free again, I decided to start a debate about proposing to Mike and David a change of name.
I consider (and always have thought in that way) that Knowledge management is a better name to describe what I wanted the WG to work in. Let me include what the WG charter describes as Goal.
Goal
The goal of the OWG is to expand and promote the application, education and theory of knowledge management (in the form of ontology) throughout the whole Systems Engineering (SE) lifecycle as a means to reduce or eliminate existing barriers in the SE practice.
Rationale:
We propose the application of ontology based knowledge management as an orthogonal driver within systems engineering practice to enable processes, methods and tools harmonization. More specifically, the intention of this working group is to create outcomes that enable the harmonization of initiatives, processes or activities like, MBSE, requirements management, traceability management, quality management, etc., and to remove or overcome existing barriers (computational, social, linguistic, etc.).
We tried to get a decision made at the WG but we were not ready to decide. Therefore, I would like to ask you if you consider relevant to change the name of the WG from
OLD NAME: Ontology Working Group
PROPOSED NEW NAME: Knowledge Management & Ontology Working Group
Comments?
Hugs
----------------------------------------------
Prof. Juan Llorens
Informatics Dept.- EPS Leganes
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Avda Universidad 30
28911 Leganes - Madrid
Spain
Tel: +34916249498
Fax: +34916249129
e-mail Juan.L...@uc3m.es
http://www.linkedin.com/in/llorensjuan
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juan_Llorens/
----------------------------------------------
MASSON Davy (SAFRAN AIRCRAFT ENGINES)
Hi Juan.
Concerning IW, do you mean that it is never plan to have a Webex session ?
If not, I’m afraid that SAE will never attend these kind of meetings due to cost issues unfortunately… L
Concerning the name, Knowledge Management & Ontology Working Group, just a little remark as 50% of my time is dedicated to KM, I find it a little bit presumptuous to reduce KM to Ontology.
I invite you to read the ISO in attachment (it will be officially release this year) to see what I mean.
So it is more “Ontology-Based KM WG” or “KM via Ontology WG” for me.
|
Etablissement de Villaroche Rond point René Ravaud BP 42 F-77551 MOISSY CRAMAYEL CEDEX |
|
Safran Aircraft Engines |
De : ont...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ont...@googlegroups.com]
De la part de Juan Llorens
Envoyé : lundi 5 février 2018 17:50
À : 'ont...@googlegroups.com' <ont...@googlegroups.com>
Objet : [onto4se] OWG minutes at the IW2018
--
You can see our wiki site for the Ontology WG at:
https://sites.google.com/site/onto4syseng/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Onto4SE" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
onto4se+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ont...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/onto4se.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/onto4se/F110B33AB304AC4BA51BE4BBBAA2F25C827B9E5A%40DUMBO.KR.INF.UC3M.ES.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
" Ce courriel et les documents qui lui sont joints peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles, être soumis aux règlementations relatives au contrôle des exportations ou ayant un caractère privé. S'ils ne vous sont pas destinés, nous vous signalons qu'il est strictement interdit de les divulguer, de les reproduire ou d'en utiliser de quelque manière que ce soit le contenu. Toute exportation ou réexportation non autorisée est interdite Si ce message vous a été transmis par erreur, merci d'en informer l'expéditeur et de supprimer immédiatement de votre système informatique ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents qui y sont attachés."
******
" This e-mail and any attached documents may contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to export control laws and regulations. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, copying of this e-mail and any attachments thereto or use of their contents by any means whatsoever is strictly prohibited. Unauthorized export or re-export is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and all attached documents from your computer system."
#
James Martin
Hi Juan.
Concerning IW, do you mean that it is never plan to have a Webex session ?
If not, I’m afraid that SAE will never attend these kind of meetings due to cost issues unfortunately… L
Concerning the name, Knowledge Management & Ontology Working Group, just a little remark as 50% of my time is dedicated to KM, I find it a little bit presumptuous to reduce KM to Ontology.
I invite you to read the ISO in attachment (it will be officially release this year) to see what I mean.
So it is more “Ontology-Based KM WG” or “KM via Ontology WG” for me.
Etablissement de Villaroche
Rond point René Ravaud BP 42
F-77551 MOISSY CRAMAYEL CEDEX
<image002.gif>
Safran Aircraft Engines
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/onto4se/f61f58a7c9f04e358f630eaa89cf1231%40Y003OLE.rd1.rf1.
<ISO 30401 English version.pdf>
Jack Ring
On Feb 6, 2018, at 02:28, James Martin <mart...@gmail.com> wrote:
How about calling it Knowledge-Based SE Working Group?That would get more attention and possibly be closer to what you are trying to achieve.Normal KM would not likely do much for you and would possibly hold you back from your more ambitious goals.And MBSE needs a little competition from KBSE!James
Sent from my iPad
Hi Juan.Concerning IW, do you mean that it is never plan to have a Webex session ?If not, I’m afraid that SAE will never attend these kind of meetings due to cost issues unfortunately… LConcerning the name, Knowledge Management & Ontology Working Group, just a little remark as 50% of my time is dedicated to KM, I find it a little bit presumptuous to reduce KM to Ontology.I invite you to read the ISO in attachment (it will be officially release this year) to see what I mean.So it is more “Ontology-Based KM WG” or “KM via Ontology WG” for me.
<ISO 30401 English version.pdf>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/onto4se/4F4E8F68-25FD-4FA7-8D1B-2B65EA400E58%40gmail.com.
Sherman, Bob
I bet we would all agree that SE “should be” inherently knowledge based. On the other hand, I suspect that we have all seen SE artifacts (especially MBSE artifacts) that read like “as-built” documentation (of past builds of a system). Thus, Dave Rousseau’s slide below (shared in IW2018 - https://sites.google.com/site/sswg2018/iw) and similar, earlier works from Jack are helpful reminders of what can be “known” about a system.
So… I’m wondering if Jack and Dave would be comfortable with notion of arranging a table like Dave’s (above) to show (think of) Ontology as spanning all rows. Such alignment would validate Juan’s “goal” statement calling out the opportunity to better leverage ontology to explicate “knowledge” throughout a system’s lifecycle (validating “knowledge” in the name).
“The goal of the OWG is to expand and promote the application, education and theory of knowledge management (in the form of ontology) throughout the whole Systems Engineering (SE) lifecycle as a means to reduce or eliminate existing barriers in the SE practice.”
Regarding the current nominees of “Knowledge Management & Ontology” and “Knowledge Based Systems Engineering”… three thoughts:
- Knowledge seems more emergent than “base”; so the word “based” has some issues.
- While there’s alignment that “Ontology” is the fulcrum, it seems only having “Ontology” in the name comes across as to academic.
- Improved capture and re-use of “System” “Knowledge” seems like a worthy business goal… thinking of Jack’s and Dave’s analysis of the types of things we should “know” about systems.
Given the above, I’d lean towards Juan’s proposal. However, it feels a bit strange to not have the word “System” in the name; i.e. maybe “Systems Knowledge Ontology” (SKO) would be more clear when referenced from outside of INCOSE. Lastly, the SKO name could also serve as the name of a product created by the working group… reminding us that “products” are a valuable, guiding thing in INCOSE (for all the right reasons).
Bob Sherman
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/onto4se/5560769D-B63E-435D-94D3-8587B237A43C%40gmail.com.
LAPLUME Yannick (SAFRAN)
Very interesting thoughts.
According to that, I would suggest “Ontology & Knowledge Management Working Group” (OKM), rather than “KM and Ontology”, considering that ontology is “the fulcrum” (or maybe the starting point) of KM, and thus ontology is somehow included in KM :
· In “KM & Ontology”, we don’t understand the “and”, that stands for “including” (as if we wanted to highlight the “ontology” part of KM)
· In “Ontology & KM”, the “and” is like an extension: from original Ontology, we expand to Knowledge management (it keeps history with the group as it was created)
As far as I’m concerned, I do not find the Systems Knowledge Ontology clear. It makes me think that we expect to create an ontology of systems knowledge.
If you want to keep the word “system”, maybe we can propose something like “Systems Engineering Knowledge Management” or “KM for SE” (SEKM or KMSE).
Best regards,
Yannick LAPLUME | ||||
| ||||
|
De : ont...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ont...@googlegroups.com] De la part de Sherman, Bob
Envoyé : mercredi 7 février 2018 00:20
À : ont...@googlegroups.com
Cc : Juan.L...@uc3m.es
Objet : RE: [onto4se] RE: OWG minutes at the IW2018
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/onto4se/CY1PR0101MB120929782AE2B878214F88A1F6FD0%40CY1PR0101MB1209.prod.exchangelabs.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Jack Ring
On Feb 6, 2018, at 16:40, LAPLUME Yannick (SAFRAN) <yannick...@safrangroup.com> wrote:
Very interesting thoughts.According to that, I would suggest “Ontology & Knowledge Management Working Group” (OKM), rather than “KM and Ontology”, considering that ontology is “the fulcrum” (or maybe the starting point) of KM, and thus ontology is somehow included in KM :· In “KM & Ontology”, we don’t understand the “and”, that stands for “including” (as if we wanted to highlight the “ontology” part of KM)· In “Ontology & KM”, the “and” is like an extension: from original Ontology, we expand to Knowledge management (it keeps history with the group as it was created)As far as I’m concerned, I do not find the Systems Knowledge Ontology clear. It makes me think that we expect to create an ontology of systems knowledge.If you want to keep the word “system”, maybe we can propose something like “Systems Engineering Knowledge Management” or “KM for SE” (SEKM or KMSE).Best regards,
Complex Systems Engineering
P +33 (0) 1 61 31 84 01 • M +33 (0)6 76 61 00 16
Safran Tech / Modelisation & Simulation
Rue des Jeunes Bois, Chateaufort, CS80112
78772 Magny Les Hameaux Cedex
www.safran-group.com
De : ont...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ont...@googlegroups.com] De la part de Sherman, Bob
Envoyé : mercredi 7 février 2018 00:20
À : ont...@googlegroups.com
Cc : Juan.L...@uc3m.es
Objet : RE: [onto4se] RE: OWG minutes at the IW2018I bet we would all agree that SE “should be” inherently knowledge based. On the other hand, I suspect that we have all seen SE artifacts (especially MBSE artifacts) that read like “as-built” documentation (of past builds of a system). Thus, Dave Rousseau’s slide below (shared in IW2018 - https://sites.google.com/site/sswg2018/iw) and similar, earlier works from Jack are helpful reminders of what can be “known” about a system.
<image008.jpg>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/onto4se/5a7d3297f55940f8b1ed40233ac3ff31%40Y0032OS.rd1.rf1.
Paola Di Maio
--
You can see our wiki site for the Ontology WG at: https://sites.google.com/site/onto4syseng/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Onto4SE" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to onto4se+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ont...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/onto4se.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/onto4se/F110B33AB304AC4BA51BE4BBBAA2F25C827B9E5A%40DUMBO.KR.INF.UC3M.ES.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Lan
在 2018年2月7日星期三 UTC下午12:46:40，Paola Di Maio写道：
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to onto4se+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ont...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/onto4se.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/onto4se/F110B33AB304AC4BA51BE4BBBAA2F25C827B9E5A%40DUMBO.KR.INF.UC3M.ES.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Paola Di Maio
I have been doing literature review on the applications of ontologies in systems engineering since last year. Your paper about digital ecosystems for knowledge management in SE and the need for a semantic vocabulary for SE really caught my attention.
In one of them, you said this work was part of a project founded by EPRSC in the UK. Do you mind sharing with us how the final findings were and what its further research would be? This could help us to raise more new project topics and learn from the past.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to onto4se+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ont...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/onto4se.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/onto4se/f68a84a8-09c9-4853-997e-2b98c357a665%40googlegroups.com.
Juan Llorens
I forward you an email sent by Lan Yang, but rejected by the group
Hugs
------- 1 of 1 -------
Date: Feb 07 09:48AM -0800
Thank you, Juan. It‘s good to learn what happened during the WG's meeting on IW18.
Since Knowledge Management is left and available for use, I support that we add it to our WG's name. But in the meantime, we should keep Ontology in