Omyn/EDGY4H

Fork 0

Files

Sacha Roger eee1ad9401 Ajouter Project.md

2025-09-26 13:04:32 +00:00

21 KiB

Raw Blame History

OntolEDGY Documentation - DRAFT v.0.1

Enterprise Design Graph InterplaY - Formal Specification DRAFT

Version: 0.1-draft
Last Updated: September 22, 2024
Authors: Intersection Group, Omyn Health
Methodology: Maria Keet Standards Compliance (Draft Implementation)
Status: DRAFT - REQUIRES EMPIRICAL VALIDATION
License: Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0

DOCUMENT STATUS AND LIMITATIONS

This is a DRAFT specification that has undergone conceptual analysis but requires empirical validation before production use.

What Has Been Done (Verified)

Structural analysis of TTL syntax and semantics
Alignment verification with EDGY 23 Language Foundations
Conceptual consistency checking (manual)
Competency question design (untested)
Ontological design pattern analysis

What Remains To Be Done (Critical)

Automated consistency checking with reasoners
OOPS! pitfall scanner execution
Performance benchmarking with real data
Expert domain validation with Intersection core team review
Tool compatibility verification
SPARQL query execution and validation

1. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE

1.1 Purpose

The EDGY ontology provides a formal semantic foundation for the Enterprise Design Graph InterplaY framework. This DRAFT specification outlines the conceptual design and intended formal semantics, pending empirical validation.

1.2 Domain and Scope

Primary Domain: Enterprise architecture and organizational design
Application Range: Commercial enterprises, non-profit organizations, government institutions
Granularity: Strategic to operational enterprise levels
Temporal Scope: Current state and future state enterprise configurations
Spatial Scope: Single organizations to multi-enterprise ecosystems

1.3 Intended Users

Primary Users:

Enterprise architects designing organizational structures
Business analysts modeling enterprise processes
Organizational designers optimizing enterprise configurations
Systems thinking practitioners analyzing complex organizations

Secondary Users:

Tool developers requiring enterprise semantics
Researchers in organizational theory
Consultants implementing enterprise transformations

1.4 Ontological Commitments

Graph Theory Foundation: Enterprises are modeled as directed graphs where elements (nodes) are connected through relationships (edges) to form analyzable network structures.
Function Behaviour Structure Alignment:

Function: Desired outcomes and purposes (edgy:Purpose, edgy:Outcome)
Behaviour: Observable activities and processes (edgy:Process, edgy:Activity, edgy:Journey)
Structure: Physical and organizational objects (edgy:Asset, edgy:Organization, edgy:Product)

Three-Relationship Primitive System: All enterprise relationships derive from three fundamental primitives (link, flow, tree) ensuring consistent semantic modeling.
Facet-Based Multi-Perspective Modeling: Three complementary facets (Experience, Architecture, Identity) provide complete enterprise coverage through intersection elements.

2. DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY

2.1 Methodological Approach

Primary Methodology: Hybrid macro-level (NeON methodology) and micro-level (OntoClean) development approach following Keet Chapter 5 guidelines.
Knowledge Engineering Process (Applied to Date):

Requirements Analysis: EDGY 23 Language Foundations specification analysis
Conceptualization: Graph-theoretic enterprise modeling principles
Formalization: OWL 2 EL ontology implementation (structural)
Implementation: Turtle serialization with formal axioms
Evaluation: PENDING - Requires empirical validation

2.2 Knowledge Sources

Primary Authoritative Sources:

EDGY 23: Language Foundations (Intersection Group, 2023) - Analyzed
Function Behaviour Structure Ontology (Gero, 1990) - Conceptually aligned
Graph Theory in Enterprise Architecture - Conceptually integrated
Secondary Supporting Sources:
ArchiMate 3.1 Enterprise Architecture Modeling Language - Reviewed
Systems Thinking in Practice (Checkland, 1999) - Conceptually aligned
Enterprise Engineering methodologies - Reviewed
Validation Sources (PENDING):
Real-world enterprise case studies
Expert domain knowledge validation
Tool implementation feedback

2.3 Design Principles (Implemented)

Principle P1: Three-Primitive Constraint: All object properties must specialize link, flow, or tree primitives ensuring consistent relationship semantics. Verified structurally
Principle P2: Facet Coverage: Every element must be viewable through at least one facet ensuring complete enterprise perspective coverage. Implemented axiomatically
Principle P3: Graph Connectivity: All elements must connect to at least one other element preventing isolated nodes in enterprise graphs. Implemented axiomatically
Principle P4: Intersection Formalization: Cross-facet elements (Organization, Product) must be formally defined as facet intersections using OWL equivalence classes. Implemented axiomatically

3. COMPETENCY QUESTIONS (DESIGNED - UNTESTED)

⚠️ These competency questions have been designed based on requirements analysis but have NOT been empirically tested with real data or SPARQL execution.

3.1 Structural Analysis Questions

CQ1: "What capabilities does an organization possess to enable specific processes?"

PREFIX edgy: <http://www.omyn.ai/schema/edgy#>
SELECT ?org ?capability ?process WHERE {
  ?org a edgy:Organization ;
       edgy:possesses ?capability .
  ?process a edgy:Process ;
           edgy:requires ?capability .
}

Status: UNTESTED - Requires SPARQL endpoint and test data
CQ2: "Which products serve customer tasks within user journeys?"

PREFIX edgy: <http://www.omyn.ai/schema/edgy#>
SELECT ?product ?task ?journey WHERE {
  ?journey a edgy:Journey .
  ?task edgy:marksa ?journey .
  ?product edgy:serves ?task .
}

Status: UNTESTED - Requires SPARQL endpoint and test data
CQ3: "What assets are required by capabilities to deliver specific products?"

PREFIX edgy: <http://www.omyn.ai/schema/edgy#>
SELECT ?asset ?capability ?product WHERE {
  ?capability edgy:requires ?asset .
  ?process edgy:realizes ?capability ;
           edgy:delivers ?product .
}

Status: UNTESTED - Requires SPARQL endpoint and test data

3.2 Dynamic Flow Analysis Questions

CQ4: "How do brand representations propagate through organizational purposes?"

PREFIX edgy: <http://www.omyn.ai/schema/edgy#>
SELECT ?brand ?purpose ?element WHERE {
  ?brand edgy:represents ?purpose .
  ?element edgy:pursues ?purpose .
}

Status: UNTESTED - Requires SPARQL endpoint and test data

3.3 Cross-Facet InterplaY Questions

CQ5: "Which elements operate at the intersection of multiple facets?"

PREFIX edgy: <http://www.omyn.ai/schema/edgy#>
SELECT ?element ?facet1 ?facet2 WHERE {
  ?element edgy:viewedThrough ?facet1, ?facet2 .
  FILTER(?facet1 != ?facet2)
}

Status: UNTESTED - Requires SPARQL endpoint and test data

4. CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE (VERIFIED)

4.1 Core Class Hierarchy

EDGY Enterprise Elements:
edgy:Element (abstract base class)
├── edgy:Object (concrete physical/digital entities)
│   ├── edgy:Asset (capabilities-enabling resources)
│   ├── edgy:Content (story-conveying information)
│   ├── edgy:Organization (people working together) [Architecture ∩ Identity]
│   ├── edgy:People (individual stakeholders)
│   └── edgy:Product (customer-serving offerings) [Architecture ∩ Experience]
├── edgy:Activity (dynamic behaviors)
│   ├── edgy:Journey (stakeholder experience sequences) [Experience]
│   ├── edgy:Process (capability-realizing procedures) [Architecture]
│   └── edgy:Task (people-accomplished goals)
├── edgy:Brand (market-facing identity representation) [Identity]
├── edgy:Capability (process-enabling organizational abilities) [Architecture]
├── edgy:Channel (experience-delivering touchpoints) [Experience]
├── edgy:Outcome (achievement-targeted results)
│   └── edgy:Purpose (enterprise existence-justifying reasons)
└── edgy:Story (meaning-conveying narratives) [Identity]

Verification Status: Structurally verified against EDGY 23 specification

4.2 Relationship Architecture (Verified)

Three Primitive Relationships:
edgy:link (Structural Association):

Domain/Range: owl:Thing → owl:Thing
Characteristics: Symmetric by default, can be asymmetric in specializations
Purpose: Static structural relationships between enterprise elements

edgy:flow (Dynamic Sequence):

Domain/Range: owl:Thing → owl:Thing
Characteristics: AsymmetricProperty (directional behavioral flows)
Purpose: Dynamic behavioral sequences and object passing between elements

edgy:tree (Hierarchical Containment):

Domain/Range: owl:Thing → owl:Thing
Characteristics: IrreflexiveProperty, AsymmetricProperty
Purpose: Hierarchical containment and aggregation between same-type elements
Verification Status: Structurally implemented - All 21 domain-specific properties inherit from these primitives

4.3 Facet System Architecture (Verified)

Three EDGY Facets:
edgy:ExperienceFacet: People-centric perspective

Primary Elements: Journey, Channel, Task
Focus: Stakeholder interactions and experience optimization

edgy:ArchitectureFacet: Structure-centric perspective

Primary Elements: Process, Capability, Asset
Focus: Organizational structures and operational capabilities

edgy:IdentityFacet: Meaning-centric perspective

Primary Elements: Story, Brand, Purpose
Focus: Organizational meaning and stakeholder perception

Intersection Elements:

Organization = ArchitectureFacet ∩ IdentityFacet
Product = ArchitectureFacet ∩ ExperienceFacet
Verification Status: Axiomatically implemented using OWL equivalence classes

5. FORMAL AXIOMS AND CONSTRAINTS (IMPLEMENTED - UNTESTED)

** Status: These axioms have been implemented in OWL **
Status: have NOT been tested with automated reasoners.

5.1 Graph Connectivity Axioms

Axiom GC1: Element Connectivity Requirement

edgy:Element rdfs:subClassOf 
    [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
      owl:onProperty [ owl:unionOf (edgy:link edgy:flow edgy:tree) ] ;
      owl:minCardinality 1 ] .

Status: Implemented
Status: Untested with reasoners

5.2 Facet System Axioms

Axiom FS1: Universal Facet Coverage

edgy:Element rdfs:subClassOf 
    [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
      owl:onProperty edgy:viewedThrough ;
      owl:minCardinality 1 ] .

Axiom FS2: Organization Intersection Definition

edgy:Organization owl:equivalentClass 
    [ owl:intersectionOf (
        [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
          owl:onProperty edgy:viewedThrough ;
          owl:hasValue edgy:ArchitectureFacet ]
        [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
          owl:onProperty edgy:viewedThrough ;
          owl:hasValue edgy:IdentityFacet ]
    ) ] .

Status: Implemented
Status: Untested with reasoners

5.3 Domain-Specific Constraints

Constraint DS1: Organization Capability Requirement

edgy:Organization rdfs:subClassOf 
    [ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
      owl:onProperty edgy:possesses ;
      owl:minCardinality 1 ] .

Status: Implemented
Status: Requires validation with test data

6. VALIDATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE - CURRENT STATUS

6.1 Completed Validations

Status: Structural Consistency. Validated
- Manual syntax checking completed
- EDGY 23 specification alignment verified
- Relationship hierarchy consistency confirmed
- Axiom syntax validation completed
Status: Conceptual Coherence - Validated
- OntoClean principles applied (theoretical analysis)
- FBS ontology alignment verified conceptually
- Facet system completeness confirmed structurally

6.2 PENDING Critical Validations

Status: Logical Consistency - REQUIRED:

# TESTS TO BE PERFORMED
hermit -c edgy.ttl                    # Consistency checking
pellet consistency edgy.ttl           # Alternative reasoner validation
elk-reasoner edgy.ttl                 # EL reasoning validation

Status: Automated Pitfall Detection - REQUIRED:

# OOPS! Scanner execution needed
# Upload to: http://oops.linkeddata.es/
# Expected pitfalls to investigate based on structural analysis

Status: Performance Benchmarking - REQUIRE:

# Scalability tests needed
# Generate enterprise graphs: 100, 1K, 10K elements  
# Measure reasoning time and memory consumption
# Validate query response times

6.3 Placeholder Quality Metrics (TO BE VERIFIED)

The following metrics are ESTIMATES based on structural analysis and require empirical validation:

Metric Category	Estimated Value	Confidence Level	❌ Validation Required
Logical Consistency	Likely Consistent	Medium	Reasoner execution
OOPS! Score	7-9/10 (estimated)	Low	❌ Automated scanning
Competency Question Coverage	100% (designed)	Medium	SPARQL execution
Reasoning Performance	Unknown	None	Benchmarking
Memory Requirements	Unknown	None	Load testing

7. USAGE GUIDELINES AND PATTERNS (DESIGNED - UNTESTED)

7.1 Basic Enterprise Modeling Patterns

Pattern 1: Organizational Capability Model

:acmeCorp a edgy:Organization ;
    edgy:possesses :salesCapability, :developmentCapability ;
    edgy:makes :softwareProduct ;
    edgy:builds :acmeBrand .

:salesProcess a edgy:Process ;
    edgy:realizes :salesCapability ;
    edgy:delivers :softwareProduct ;
    edgy:requires :salesAsset .

Status Syntactically valid
Status: Untested with real data

Pattern 2: Customer Journey Mapping

:customerJourney a edgy:Journey ;
    edgy:traverses :webChannel, :storeChannel ;
    edgy:viewedThrough edgy:ExperienceFacet .

:purchaseTask a edgy:Task ;
    edgy:marksa :customerJourney .

:softwareProduct edgy:serves :purchaseTask ;
    edgy:featuresIn :customerJourney .

Status: Conce**ptually sound **
Requires validation in tools

8. REQUIRED VALIDATION ROADMAP

Phase 1: Automated Validation (IMMEDIATE - 1-2 weeks)

Critical Tests:

Reasoner Consistency Checking
- Execute HermiT, Pellet, ELK reasoners
- Verify no logical contradictions
- Document any inconsistencies found
OOPS! Pitfall Analysis
- Upload ontology to automated scanner
- Analyze detected pitfalls
- Prioritize and address critical issues
Basic SPARQL Query Testing
- Set up triple store with ontology
- Execute all competency question queries
- Verify syntactic correctness

Phase 2: Performance Validation

Scalability Tests:

Load Testing
- Generate synthetic enterprise data (100, 1K, 10K elements)
- Measure classification time and memory usage
- Document performance characteristics
Query Performance
- Benchmark competency question response times
- Test complex graph traversal queries
- Identify optimization requirements

Phase 3: Domain Expert Validation

Expert Review:

Ontological Review
- Independent ontologist validation
- OntoClean methodology peer review
- Conceptual coherence assessment
Domain Expert Review
- Enterprise architect practitioner feedback
- Real-world use case validation
- Alignment with enterprise design practice

Phase 4: Tool Integration Testing

Ecosystem Validation:

Tool Compatibility
- Protégé import/export testing
- SPARQL endpoint deployment
- Visualization tool integration
Real-World Pilot
- Small enterprise modeling pilot project
- Practitioner usability assessment
- Documentation refinement

9. STANDARDS COMPLIANCE AND INTEROPERABILITY

9.1 W3C Standards Compliance

OWL 2 Compliance:

Status: Structurally implemented
Status: Untested with validators
- OWL 2 EL Profile: Designed for but requires validation
- RDF(S) Compatibility: Implemented but untested
- SPARQL Support: Designed for but requires testing
Metadata Standards:
Status: Implemented
- Dublin Core Terms: Complete metadata using DC Terms vocabulary
- SKOS Core: Selected integration (edgy:Purpose)

9.2 Enterprise Architecture Standards (THEORETICAL)

ArchiMate 3.1 Alignment: REQUIRES FORMAL MAPPING VALIDATION
- Conceptual alignment identified
- Formal transformation rules needed
- Tool interoperability testing required
BPMN 2.0 Integration: REQUIRES VALIDATION
- Process elements theoretically compatible
- Mapping validation needed

10. KNOWN LIMITATIONS AND RISKS

10.1 Technical Risks

Reasoning Performance: Untested axiom complexity may cause performance issues with large enterprise models.
Tool Compatibility: Complex OWL constructs may not be supported by all enterprise architecture tools.
Scalability: Graph connectivity constraints may not scale to enterprise-wide models.

10.2 Methodological Limitations

Expert Validation Gap: Ontology has not been reviewed by independent domain experts.
Real-World Testing Gap: No validation with actual enterprise data or use cases.
User Acceptance Unknown: Accessibility to target user community unverified.

10.3 Conceptual Risks

Over-Engineering: Formal axioms may be unnecessarily complex for practical enterprise design.
Philosophical Tensions: Graph-theoretic approach may conflict with traditional enterprise architecture thinking.

11. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

11.1 Current Status

This DRAFT specification provides a solid conceptual foundation for the EDGY ontology with:

Complete structural implementation
EDGY 23 specification alignment
Formal axiomatization (untested)
Methodological rigor (theoretical)

11.2 Critical Next Steps

Before Production Use:

Complete automated validation suite (Phase 1)
Perform scalability and performance testing (Phase 2)
Obtain independent expert validation (Phase 3)
Conduct real-world pilot testing (Phase 4)

11.3 Expected Timeline

Validation Complete: 3-6 months
Production Ready: 6-12 months
Community Adoption: 12-24 months

12. REFERENCES

12.1 Primary Sources

Intersection Group. "EDGY 23: Language Foundations." Open Source Enterprise Design Framework, 2023.
Gero, J.S. "Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design." AI Magazine, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 26-36, 1990.
Keet, C. Maria. "An Introduction to Ontology Engineering." College Publications, London, 2018.

12.2 Standards and Specifications

W3C OWL Working Group. "OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Document Overview (Second Edition)." W3C Recommendation, December 2012.
The Open Group. "ArchiMate 3.1 Specification." The Open Group Standard, 2019.

12.3 Methodological References

Suárez-Figueroa, M.C., Gómez-Pérez, A., Fernández-López, M. "The NeON Methodology framework: A scenario-based methodology for ontology development." Applied Ontology, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 107-145, 2015.
Poveda-Villalón, M., Gómez-Pérez, A., Suárez-Figueroa, M.C. "OOPS! (OntOlogy Pitfall Scanner!): An On-line Tool for Ontology Validation." International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 7-34, 2014.

Document Status: DRAFT SPECIFICATION
Validation Status: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS COMPLETE - EMPIRICAL VALIDATION PENDING
Production Readiness: NOT READY - VALIDATION REQUIRED
Contact: sacha@omyn.ai
Repository: https://gitea/omyn.ai/schema/ontolEDGY-draft

⚠️ DISCLAIMER: This ontology specification is a draft that requires comprehensive validation before production deployment. Use at your own risk for experimental purposes only.

21 KiB Raw Blame History Unescape Escape