THE WELCH COMPANY
440 Davis Court #1602
San Francisco, CA 94111-2496
415 781 5700


S U M M A R Y


DIARY: December 14, 2000 12:47 PM Thursday; Rod Welch

Jack Park submitted use cases for ontologies to support KM.

1...Summary/Objective
2...QPT Knowledge Representation Applies Semiotics and Ontology for OHS
...............Qualitative Process Theory (QPT)
3...Process Rules Fire to Change Relations Among Actors and States
4...Axioms in Ontology are Process Rules that "Fire" According to Context
5...Use Cases and Scenarios Provide Shell to Invent OHS
6...Comprehensive Library of Use Cases form Ontology for OHS Like "Bingo"
7...Common Use Cases Provide Interoperability Among Speciality Domains

ACTION ITEMS.................. Click here to comment!

1...Need examples of envisionment graphs and an existential graphs for
2...How does this relate to objectives, elements and functions of OHS
3..."Bingo" conveys fast accomplishment.
4...Is there a body of use case analysis that has not been submitted

CONTACTS 

SUBJECTS
Ontology Evolves from Use Cases under Qualitative Process
Use Cases Qualitative Process Theory Relates to Ontology for DKR/OHS
OHS Invent from Ontology Use Cases under Qualitative Process Theory,
Qualitative Process Theory Use Case Ontology Invents OHS, Jack Park 0
Ontology Qualitative Process Theory Use Cases Invent OHS, Jack 001214
Engine Graphical Maps Organize Record for Reporting
Rule Firings Ontology formed by Use Cases under Qualitative Process T
Law Use Case for OHS Ontology using Citations, Rod, 001214
Use Case Analysis Set OHS/DKR Requirements, Jack Park

3111 -    ..
3112 - Summary/Objective
3113 -
311301 - Follow up ref SDS 37 0000, ref SDS 4 0000.
311302 -
311303 - Jack introduces Qualititative Process Theory (QPT), as another new
311304 - explanation for developing use cases to invent an OHS, based on his
311305 - proposal for ontology to automatically create subjects and links,
311306 - perhaps by "firing" process rules. ref SDS 0 NO6I  QPT uses pictures
311307 - and other elements similar to explanations of Semiotics cited earlier
311308 - for guidance on designing an OHS and DKR capability. In a second
311309 - letter, Jack proposes defining use cases, also, scenarios, that
311310 - provide an ontology. ref SDS 0 YL4I  The level of effort to accomplish
311311 - this task is not presented. ref SDS 0 UN6G
311312 -
311313 - Submitted ref DIT 1 0001 responding to Jack's letter based on analysis
311314 - of legal practice as core knowledge process, and citing letter today
311315 - on a trial before Judge Douglas, ref DIP 1 009P, that adjudicated rent
311316 - control, ref SDS 38 0001, as an instructive use case that implements
311317 - Doug Engelbart's request for citations to the record, see 001025.
311318 - ref SDS 28 00VU
311319 - ..
311320 - Explain....
311321 -
311322 -      Scenario in legal practice, from NWO, ref OF 6 2536, also
311323 -      applies, ref DIT 1 XV7G, to.....
311324 -
311325 -           medical practice, on 990625. ref SDS 6 4185
311326 -
311327 -           executive management, also on 990625. ref SDS 7 1024
311328 -
311329 -           engineering practice, on 990524. ref SDS 5 0876
311330 -
311331 -           reading a book, on 900303, ref SDS 1 4284, or on 980307,
311332 -           ref SDS 3 0001,
311333 -
311334 -           digging a ditch, on 000606. ref SDS 18 HV4F
311335 -      ..
311336 -      Enhancing competency called out by Doug, reported in the
311337 -      citation for being awarded the National Medal of Technology,
311338 -      reported on 001114, ref SDS 30 SU3L, requires doing KM, not just
311339 -      talking about it, ref DIT 1 XV7G, as discussed by Eugene Kim on
311340 -      001126. ref SDS 31 T63N
311341 -
311342 - Request that Jack provide alignment, ref DIT 1 J59J, with the project
311343 - record called out by Doug Engelbart on 001025. ref SDS 28 00VU
311344 -
311345 - Explain legal practice is a good model for improving competency in all
311346 - disciplines because it has worked out a good method over thousands of
311347 - years for making judgements about work in all disciplines, based on an
311348 - underlying architecture of human thought. ref DIT 1 M74G
311349 -
311350 -
311351 -
311352 -
311353 -  ..
3114 -
3115 -
3116 - Progress
3117 -
311701 -  ..
311702 - QPT Knowledge Representation Applies Semiotics and Ontology for OHS
311703 -
311704 - Received ref DRT 1 0001 from Jack Park proposing use case analyses
311705 - based on a methodology that is new to the project discussion, called
311706 -
311707 -
311708 -               Qualitative Process Theory (QPT)
311709 -
311710 - QTP is described as...
311711 -
311712 -      ...a representation and inferencing mechanism by which one can
311713 -      express physical processes in ontological terms.
311714 -
311715 - On 000713 Cliff Joslyn cited Semiotics, which research showed related
311716 - to communication, meaning and inference. ref SDS 20 4078  Jack does
311717 - not relate QPT and Semiotics in the letter today.
311718 - ..
311719 - Jack's letter today supplements his submission on 001130
311720 - explaining a 3-layer architecture with an "engine" for ontology to
311721 - improve SDS subjects and linking. ref SDS 33 0001  Earlier, on 000405
311722 - Jack submitted an explanation of ontology based on signs and symbols,
311723 - ref SDS 12 1548, that supplemented the definition of ontology
311724 - submitted on 000221. ref SDS 9 6W6N  On 000606 another definition of
311725 - ontology was submitted. ref SDS 18 J13M
311726 -
311727 -     The proliforation of terminology requires "ontology" to
311728 -     continually identify related concepts.
311729 -
311730 -  ..
311731 - QP theory says we need to know about....
311732 -
311733 -     actors
311734 -     relations
311735 -     states
311736 - ..
311737 - QP theory builds an 'envisionment' comprised of a graph
311738 - (sometimes large graph) showing 'initial conditions.', ref DRT 1 U35N
311739 -
311740 -     This explanation seems related to Semiotics which uses Existential
311741 -     Graphs to explain the context of continuous thought that builds
311742 -     relations. reviewed on 000515. ref SDS 16 0010 and ref SDS 16 R4SK
311743 -
311744 -     Need examples of envisionment graphs and an existential graphs for
311745 -     improving handling of daily working information to augment human
311746 -     intelligence.
311747 -
311748 -     In the letter today responding to Jack, cite legal practice
311749 -     example that shows real-life scenario problem that reflects
311750 -     architecture of human thought. ref DIT 1 H56G
311751 -
311752 -
311753 -  ..
311754 - Process Rules Fire to Change Relations Among Actors and States
311755 - Axioms in Ontology are Process Rules that "Fire" According to Context
311756 -
311757 - Jack explains today having imported a metaphor from the theator into
311758 - QP theory, so, one 'sets the stage' by defining initial conditions.
311759 - There is no 'script' on this stage, just process rules, some of which
311760 - can 'fire' changing the stage setting allowing for other rules to
311761 - fire. Each 'firing' defines a new stage setting (node in the graph).
311762 - When multiple rules can fire against a particular node, you have
311763 - multiple branches from that node to new nodes. The process continues
311764 - until no more rules can fire, or until 'stopping rules' --which define
311765 - some goal stage setting -- fire. ref DRT 1 676O
311766 -
311767 -     Process rules that "fire" may be the "engine" mechanism proposed
311768 -     on 001130 to automatically create subjects and links. ref SDS 33
311769 -     GK8O  On 001025 Jack's ideas for automatic processing was
311770 -     discussed by Paul Fernhout. ref SDS 28 LR6N
311771 -
311772 -        [On 001217 Matt Placek wants to know how much of SDS is
311773 -        automated. ref SDS 39 VE4O
311774 -     ..
311775 -     How would these firings help the tenant, the developers and
311776 -     later a judge and jury figure out the best course in the rent
311777 -     control dispute, per letter to Jack on legal practice. ref DIT 1
311778 -     H56G
311779 - ..
311780 - Thinking in newtonian terms, moving from one node to the next
311781 - along some arc means that the arc represents some 'mechanism' or
311782 - presence of a causal mechanism at work (e.g. the rule that fired).
311783 - Defining the entire vocabulary of such a QP universe is, indeed,
311784 - defining an ontology.  Process rules appear as 'axioms' in the
311785 - ontology. ref DRT 1 00UX
311786 -
311787 -
311788 -  ..
311789 - Use Cases and Scenarios Provide Shell to Invent OHS
311790 -
311791 - Use cases are very course grained envisionments. Basically, the
311792 - presence of actors, and a description of the gross change to occur
311793 - between initial conditions (which are not stated in use cases) and
311794 - final conditions (which are also not stated in use cases). ref DRT 1
311795 - 668J
311796 - ..
311797 - Jack proposes consider following use case....
311798 -
311799 -     UC-ActorViewDocument
311800 -
311801 -     Actors:     user, OHS
311802 -
311803 -     Action:     user views document with OHS
311804 - ..
311805 - Scenarios are finer grained expansions of the extremely crude
311806 - envisionment expressed in a use case.
311807 -
311808 - Consider this scenario for UC-ActorViewDocument
311809 -
311810 -     Before:
311811 -
311812 -         Actors:
311813 -
311814 -             user, OHS, Home Page, Desired Document
311815 -
311816 -         Relations:
311817 -
311818 -             user sitting at OHS terminal
311819 -         ..
311820 -         States:
311821 -
311822 -             OHS 'Home Page' displayed.
311823 -
311824 -     Actions:
311825 -
311826 -         In this scenario, the action is a user behavior, not a process rule
311827 -         firing
311828 -
311829 -         Actor clicks hyperlink to document.
311830 -
311831 -     After:
311832 -
311833 -         Actors:
311834 -
311835 -             same
311836 -         ..
311837 -         Relations:
311838 -
311839 -             same
311840 -
311841 -         States:
311842 -
311843 -             Desired Document displayed
311844 - ..
311845 - In a second letter, ref DRT 2 0001, responding to ref DIT 1
311846 - 0001, Jack proposes following additional or expanded use cases....
311847 -
311848 -      EMAIL
311849 -
311850 -          User receive email
311851 -          User send email
311852 -          User annotate email
311853 -          User replyTo email
311854 -          OHS archive email
311855 -          OHS autoLink email
311856 -
311857 -      SDS, ref DRT 2 CK6K
311858 -
311859 -          Note: email annotation already covered
311860 -          User align records
311861 -          OHS autoLink records
311862 -          Note: I'm sure Rod will have lots more here
311863 -             ..
311864 -             SDS integrates email, non-email, books, television,
311865 -             meetings, everything that comes to the human mind.  Email
311866 -             and the web are both resources and tools to both
311867 -             collaborate and augment human intelligence, by organizing
311868 -             and maintaining context, per POIMS. ref OF 4 0561
311869 -
311870 -      WEB, ref DRT 2 00TT
311871 -
311872 -          User browse webpage<BR>
311873 -          User annotate webpage<BR>
311874 -          OHS autoLink webpage
311875 -
311876 -      COLLABORATE, ref DRT 2 00UR
311877 -
311878 -          Note: email and web fit in here
311879 -          ..
311880 -          User create document Usser edit document User
311881 -          shareDocumentWith OtherUser User pose IBISQuestion User
311882 -          respondTo IBISQuestion OHS maintain IBISQuestion OHS maintain
311883 -          IBISResponse OHS autoLink IBISQuestion OHS autoLink
311884 -          IBISResponse
311885 - ..
311886 - Jack proposes in his first letter that these use case
311887 - explanations provide a shell to invent OHS by refining the scenario to
311888 - include rule firings that guide behavior of OHS itself.  From that, we
311889 - get a simulation of OHS in action. ref DRT 1 01UR
311890 -
311891 - Jack says in his second letter that these use cases lead to the
311892 - underlying mechanics of an OHS.  Jack explains these nouns and verbs
311893 - can be refined, and use cases can be refined to develop an ontology
311894 - that narrows the range of words necessary to accomplish the design
311895 - task, construct scenarios with the new ontology, perhaps refine the
311896 - ontology and use cases, and iterate to a point when code can be
311897 - prepared. ref DRT 2 ET3M
311898 -
311899 -     How does this relate to objectives, elements and functions of OHS
311900 -     Launch Plan, put forward on 001025? ref SDS 28 G3W8
311901 -     ..
311902 -     What would the OHS invented by the method discussed today,
311903 -     add or detract from scope and mechanics proposed by Doug on
311904 -     001025?
311905 -
311906 -     For example, would the OHS invented under this QPT approach
311907 -     provide links requested by Doug on 001025 for commenting on Doug's
311908 -     Launch Plan? ref SDS 28 00VU
311909 -
311910 -         Autolinking is reviewed on 001130. ref SDS 33 HM5J
311911 -
311912 -     How would these use case scenarios help tenants, developers and
311913 -     later a judge and jury figure out the best course in rent control
311914 -     disputes, per letter to Jack on legal practice. ref DIT 1 H56G
311915 -
311916 -     How would it help legislators craft litigation that avoids huge
311917 -     problems, from analysis on 000414? ref SDS 14 1470
311918 -     ..
311919 -     Suppose there are 10 core scenarios, 100 key scenarios,
311920 -     1,000 major scenarios, 100,000 critical scenarios, 1,000,000
311921 -     important scenarios, 10,000,0000 useful scenarios, 100,000,0000
311922 -     likely scenarios, and so on.  When would coding for OHS begin
311923 -     under this scenario?  How are the core scenarios identified under
311924 -     the reasoning in POIMS? ref OF 4 0582
311925 -
311926 -  ..
311927 - Comprehensive Library of Use Cases form Ontology for OHS Like "Bingo"
311928 - Common Use Cases Provide Interoperability Among Speciality Domains
311929 -
311930 - There will always be a huge number of 'common' use cases, very much
311931 - like the example above. ref SDS 0 00WZ  Once we have all the common
311932 - use cases constructed, we can now begin to layer more specialized use
311933 - cases that imply, or rely on the existence of common use cases.  We
311934 - might think of these as 'domain specific' use cases.  So, we begin to
311935 - think of the common use cases as the 'roots' of --eventually--a forest
311936 - of specialized use cases.  The common use cases represent the basis
311937 - for interoperability among the specialty domains. ref DRT 1 ZL7L
311938 - ..
311939 - Now, just substitute the term 'ontology' for the term 'use case'
311940 - and you have the mapping.  Bingo. Get the ontology right, and the rest
311941 - falls out (sm). ref DRT 1 01WX
311942 -
311943 - Jack believes....
311944 -
311945 -     QP theory provides formalism on which we begin to map out use
311946 -     cases and scenarios, ref DRT 1 KG9G
311947 -
311948 -     use cases and scenarios lead to an OHS ontology from which the
311949 -     entirety of OHS can then be developed. ref DRT 1 RG9O
311950 - ..
311951 - Jack will outline pragmatics and knowledge representation best
311952 - practices in future correspondence. ref DRT 1 01YZ
311953 -
311954 -     "Bingo" conveys fast accomplishment.
311955 -
311956 -     On 001130 Jack mentioned "interoperability" in relation to
311957 -     ontology, and the record shows an action item is pending on this
311958 -     idea. ref SDS 33 2X7N
311959 -
311960 -     On 001017 Eric Armstrong reported plans to release initial code
311961 -     for an OHS. ref SDS 25 IO6J  On 001018 Eric reported a snag in the
311962 -     architecture that delayed release. ref SDS 27 M4W7  On 001106
311963 -     further delay on broad range of design issues. ref SDS 29 0001  On
311964 -     001130 IBM reported that having invested $4B for Lotus Notes, plus
311965 -     millions more to develop KM, that it has also encountered delays
311966 -     releasing Raven. ref SDS 32 F26K
311967 -     ..
311968 -     POIMS explains the difficult challenge of identifying use
311969 -     case scenarios that comprise a useful "ontology," owing to the
311970 -     organic structure of subjects. ref OF 4 0561
311971 -
311972 -     On 001130 action item is pending to demonstrate the "engine" that
311973 -     makes ontology practical. ref SDS 33 HM5J
311974 -
311975 -     Therefore, need more concrete examples of use cases based on QPT,
311976 -     or Existential Graphs from Semiotics, that can create a useful
311977 -     ontology for improving competency to handle complex problems by
311978 -     handling daily working information, cited by Doug Engelbart on
311979 -     000327. ref SDS 11 3971
311980 - ..
311981 - Jack notes that the use cases mentioned in his letter today, per
311982 - above, ref SDS 0 00WZ, appear to ignore the vast amount of energy the
311983 - DKR team has already put into the development of use cases.  He wants
311984 - the two apparently disparate tracks to enhance each other, and
311985 - proposes expanding his initial list of scenarios to flesh out an OHS.
311986 - ref DRT 2 01RR
311987 -
311988 -        [On 001217 Nicholas Carroll submits format for Use Case
311989 -        analysis. ref SDS 40 T88H
311990 -
311991 -     Is there a body of use case analysis that has not been submitted
311992 -     to the expanded team?  At this time, all we have is.....
311993 -
311994 -     On 000324 Jack recommended use cases analysis to develop
311995 -     requirements for OHS/DKR effort. ref SDS 10 6052
311996 -     ..
311997 -     On 000405 Eric Armstrong proposed use case analysis to
311998 -     evaluate SDS, ref SDS 12 0784, cited by Jack. ref SDS 12 2928
311999 -
312000 -     There is no record of the team doing this analysis.  On 001130
312001 -     Jack discussed features of SDS evident from the records on the
312002 -     Internet, ref SDS 33 R73H, but does not present examples of use
312003 -     cases.
312004 -
312005 -         The record on 950327 lists a lot of scenarios for use case
312006 -         analysis. ref SDS 2 0200
312007 -
312008 -         POIMS cites several scenarios for use case analysis....
312009 -
312010 -            a.  Converting plans into action. ref OF 4 1102
312011 -
312012 -            b.  Phone call about a contract change. ref OF 4 5312
312013 -                ..
312014 -            c.  Crossing the street. ref OF 4 1104
312015 -
312016 -         NWO cites....
312017 -
312018 -            a.  Feedback illustrated by baby asking mother for a
312019 -                cookie. ref OF 6 0936
312020 -
312021 -            b.  Juggler shows faster information overwhelms limited
312022 -                span of attention. ref OF 6 1652
312023 -
312024 -            c.  Span of attention, also, overwhelmed by busy schdule up
312025 -                and down the chain of command. ref OF 6 0645
312026 -
312027 -         Typical day using SDS lists a lot of scenarios. ref OF 5 0001
312028 -
312029 -     On 000427 Lee Iverson submitted a check list for marketing and
312030 -     project management in software development.  This was called a
312031 -     "use case" analysis. ref SDS 15 0001
312032 -     ..
312033 -     On 000516 Eugene submitted a similar list of tasks for
312034 -     project management which he proposed would apply to software
312035 -     development, and Eugene called this use case analysis. ref SDS 17
312036 -     4393
312037 -
312038 -     On 000824 Eric Armstrong said that use case analysis was never
312039 -     completed. ref SDS 22 MVE8
312040 - ..
312041 - Jack proposes in the second letter today, that once common
312042 - criteria is fleshed out, two specialty tracks can be developed for....
312043 -
312044 -     1.  research collaboration (NIH), ref DRT 2 SE5F, and
312045 -
312046 -         This track aligns with report on 001017 that NIH needs support
312047 -         for collaboration. ref SDS 26 014M
312048 -
312049 -     2.  software productivity.
312050 -
312051 -         This aligns with planning on 000406 to improve software
312052 -         programming. ref SDS 13 5078
312053 -
312054 - Jack expects that new iterations in the common stuff will be needed,
312055 - because ideas generated in the specialty field will be seen to have
312056 - value across many domains. ref DRT 2 GE5J
312057 -     ..
312058 -     This proposition appears to align with telecon on 000327
312059 -     with Doug Engelbart, that a single breakthrough capability,
312060 -     ref SDS 11 9975, like alphabet technology accomplished 2,000 years
312061 -     ago, reported on 991108, ref SDS 8 5628, will improve competency
312062 -     in all fields, because "intelligence" is a powerful force that
312063 -     lifts all boats, and was explained to Mary Keeler on 000624.
312064 -     ref SDS 19 QX7N
312065 -
312066 -
312067 -
312068 -
312069 -
312070 -
312071 -
312072 -
312073 -
312074 -
3121 -