Из рассылки Онтолог Форум
Интересно Дэвид Прайс из TopQuadrant описывает свой опыт применения ISO 15926 для EPIM. На сегодня - одно из крупнейших реальных применений, наравне с внедрением iRINGTools в Bechtel.
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 20:14:22 +0000
From: David Price
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] The tools are not the problem (yet)
To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
.............
In any case, we've been able to build large-scale operational apps using a "15926 4D core with specific shortcuts" as OWL approach. One app has been running for 18 months, the second one went live last week and we have a third project underway that will go live. We've not done any work in "design" or "requirements", so I can only speak about "operation" - specifically data about what has occurred in a specified time period, a day, a month or a year ... so nothing real-time or design-y.
Based on our experience, what I can say with some authority is that the 15926 4D approach can be utilized to solve real industrial problems. As I said, I can't say with whether it addresses the domain you're working or not but there are certainly scenarios in organizations where it works just fine. In the case I mention the customer is the EPIM consortium. They contractually required 15926 because they have a far-reaching semantic vision across all their apps. That view may not be typical but does seem a good perspective for people to have in an industry where things last for decades. By building apps based on the same core 15926 modeling approach their data and related apps can be integrated later more straightforwardly and at a lower cost than could would be true if we took a different approach for each app. The view is that over decades the app landscape will certainly change, but the data can still be integrated because they've invested in a more in-depth semantic approa ch. I know that benefit to be true from experience. We lifted ontologies and data directly out of the first app to be part of the second and it worked.
Hope that's of interest and helpful.
Cheers,
David
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 20:14:22 +0000
From: David Price
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] The tools are not the problem (yet)
To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
.............
In any case, we've been able to build large-scale operational apps using a "15926 4D core with specific shortcuts" as OWL approach. One app has been running for 18 months, the second one went live last week and we have a third project underway that will go live. We've not done any work in "design" or "requirements", so I can only speak about "operation" - specifically data about what has occurred in a specified time period, a day, a month or a year ... so nothing real-time or design-y.
Based on our experience, what I can say with some authority is that the 15926 4D approach can be utilized to solve real industrial problems. As I said, I can't say with whether it addresses the domain you're working or not but there are certainly scenarios in organizations where it works just fine. In the case I mention the customer is the EPIM consortium. They contractually required 15926 because they have a far-reaching semantic vision across all their apps. That view may not be typical but does seem a good perspective for people to have in an industry where things last for decades. By building apps based on the same core 15926 modeling approach their data and related apps can be integrated later more straightforwardly and at a lower cost than could would be true if we took a different approach for each app. The view is that over decades the app landscape will certainly change, but the data can still be integrated because they've invested in a more in-depth semantic approa ch. I know that benefit to be true from experience. We lifted ontologies and data directly out of the first app to be part of the second and it worked.
Hope that's of interest and helpful.
Cheers,
David