Re: [onto4se] Understanding of systems engineering ontology/lit review?

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Paola Di Maio

unread,
Feb 27, 2018, 3:07:12 AM2/27/18
to ont...@googlegroups.com
Hi Lan

on, we are clarified with the languages between us, aren't we? ;)
between us two, at least :-) 

Secondly, as for the topic of unified language, I have some experience of using UML in my previous studies. It is very commonly accepted and a huge success. SysML is what less
 familiar to me. I have heard of it many many times but haven‘t use it in my project. I also found that some authors are interested in the comparison of UML, SysML and OWL, as well as the transformation between them. I haven't drawn a deep look into the literature about this yet, but it is possibly a different perspective from which we study about ontology or knowledge systems for SE.

 we need to strive for efficiency, without losing depth and detail.


Next, about the SEBoK, I can imagine that it is not easy to summarise such a knowledge-intensive discipline into a well-structured knowledge resource. As Juan mentioned, the previous knowledge management group is responsible for the production of the SEBoK. Were you a participant?
a very minor 'reviewer',  

I can't stop thinking about the knowledge areas, topics and glossary of terms provided by the SEBoK, when I firstly come across them. I always consider that there should be some ways to re-organise the relations between them via an ontology, which possibly can add some value to the current version, but I am not sure how.
 
very good thinking. SEBoK is a good starting block, needs to come alive
when you have time, let's talk about this and maybe ask the Stevenson guys if they have
interest in this. 

Finally, thank you for the suggestion on a search of "process ontology". Will definitely do that.
we need a lit review Lan. is this within your second year phd remit?
there seem to be already systems engineering ontologies out there that may be worth looking at and using as a starting point for future work-

 

Best Regards
Lan



在 2018年2月24日星期六 UTC下午5:08:33，Paola Di Maio写道：
Lan,
let me add
system ontology may be described as a set of concepts
engineering however may be a set of processes

A lot of interesting  relevant resources come up
with a search for

process ontology

Let us know if you find anything that helps

P


On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Lan <l.y...@nuigalway.ie> wrote:
Dear all,

I am always confused when I try to think about the following question by myself. So I am hoping to hear your opinions rather than figure it out alone. You may find what I am going to ask is very naive. But I am ready for a criticism. 

This question is - when we say to develop an ontology for systems engineering, what do we mean by this “ontology” for "systems engineering" here?

To me, systems engineering is a discipline, which is really knowledge-intensive. This discipline provides people with approaches to successfully solve complex problems. The lifecycle processes are one of them and also the one that I am familiar with the most. So an ontology for lifecycle processes is not the same as an ontology for systems engineering, obviously. The latter is much bigger and broader. 

Moreover, I am really inspired by what Richard Martin said in another post. He pointed out that systems engineering need an ontology to unify the languages. That's exactly what I expect from the ontology for systems engineering. So does this mean that the ontology for systems engineering is a knowledge representation which contains all the terminologies (a.k.a. concepts) in systems engineering discipline and their relationships? Just like what the famous Gene Ontology brings to biomedical engineering - it includes all the terms related to biological process, molecular function and cellular component. Then, since this is the ontology (& knowledge management) working group, do we try to provide this ontology as deliverables or not?

As for the application of this ontology, it can be used as a big big "dictionary", or a standardization for the current and future standards of systems engineering, or an optional visualization of the knowledge in systems engineering, or a foundation for capturing the conceptual model of systems engineering, or a support for model-based systems engineering (I don't know how), or a medium for systems engineering knowledge management...etc.

I hope my understanding does not go against the original intention of this working group. 

I am eager to hear any feedback about how you think about this question, whether what I discribe here has already been realised, any suggestions on articles I should read to catch up.

I am also looking forward to tomorrow‘s WebEx meeting.

Best Regards,
Lan

--
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/98ae20bb-42bd-456a-b743-a157703f6e3e%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--

--
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/5c98d681-5bdf-4903-b9d3-8a021d45371b%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--

Lan

unread,
Feb 27, 2018, 1:31:25 PM2/27/18
to Onto4SE
Dear Paola,

Thank you for your detailed replies. Are you still based in the UK? If so, at least we have the same time zone. Me in Ireland.

I am considering the SEBoK as a starting point because 1) in terms of SE body of knowledge, I am still at a learner stage; and 2) the SEBoK SE conceptual model (SECM) is very close to the representation form of an ontology. 

As you said, I have come across some SE ontologies when I was doing a literature review. However, the numbers and the quality (in terms of formality) are not sufficient, in my opinion. The literature review is on the topic of the application of ontologies in SE, not exactly on process ontologies. But thank you for suggesting me having a look at it. So far, I found that it is not easy to define what an ontology for SE is, since SE is so broad, but ontology is quite concrete. So my temporary solution for myself is that I am breaking SE into smaller knowledge areas following what SEBoK suggest. Therefore, I think at least it can contribute a very small effort to SEBoK from an ontological perspective.

I'm looking forward to a further communication. Do you mind if I send you personal emails? Otherwise, I probably have sent too many emails to the group members.

Best Regards
Lan



在 2018年2月27日星期二 UTC上午8:07:12，Paola Di Maio写道：
Hi Lan

Paola Di Maio

unread,
Feb 28, 2018, 5:01:54 AM2/28/18
to ont...@googlegroups.com
Dear Lan

apologies if I have missed some links, have your already conducted a LR
and is there a publication? (overloaded!!!)

Not in the UK at the mo, sure let's exchange offlist and report to the list
later if there is any progress

PDM


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/143b02ea-43fe-40a1-9b18-7e8b51583ba5%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages