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 -