Once you consider ontology, the department of metaphysics involved with what sorts of issues there are, what in all probability involves thoughts is speak of universals and particulars or sorts and tokens. However maybe you have to be pondering of the “precision mission desired outcomes” of “the nation’s warfighters and intelligence professionals.”
That’s as a result of utilized ontology, which brings philosophy and knowledge science collectively to systematically classify the kinds of objects of varied sensible technological domains (together with medical informatics, finance, intelligence, for instance) is being utilized by the navy.
Thinker Barry Smith (Buffalo), a pioneer within the subject, has over the previous few many years developed what is named Primary Formal Ontology (see here and here).
Only recently, the USA Division of Protection (Dod) has directed all of its companies to utilize Primary Formal Ontology and considered one of its extensions, Frequent Core Ontology, as a part of its “baseline requirements”.
A DoD memo explains:
Ontologies are used throughout the DoD, Intelligence Group (IC) and with different software program functions to allow information sharing, insights, and interoperability throughout a fancy community of world and disparate information and knowledge programs. Most of those ontologies, nonetheless, had been created in isolation or primarily based on incompatible rules, limiting sustainability and interoperability alternatives. Furthermore, they’re typically tied to current information sources, which show rigid and unscalable when utilized to new information streams.
By implementing the brand new ontology requirements, the whole DoD “will notice vital positive factors in information interoperability, federated search and discovery, decreased analytic timelines, and higher value effectivity.”
A press release provides an instance:
“Ontology creates information descriptions that everybody can use,” says Smith… “It’s practically unimaginable to hitch information derived from a number of sources with out an ontology.” Smith says engineers engaged on separate items of the fuselage for the Airbus 380 in 2006 had conflicting methods of representing holes of their respective computer-aided design packages. The discrepancy meant that tons of of miles of wires that needed to be threaded by the aircraft’s airframe couldn’t attain the mandatory connection factors. Being only a few millimeters in need of the mark required $6 billion to right.
The DoD’s resolution concerning the new requirements was made this previous January.
(through John Beverley)
