463 lines
21 KiB
Markdown
463 lines
21 KiB
Markdown
# 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)
|
||
- [x] Structural analysis of TTL syntax and semantics
|
||
- [x] Alignment verification with EDGY 23 Language Foundations
|
||
- [x] Conceptual consistency checking (manual)
|
||
- [x] Competency question design (untested)
|
||
- [x] 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):
|
||
- [x] **Requirements Analysis**: EDGY 23 Language Foundations specification analysis
|
||
- [x] **Conceptualization**: Graph-theoretic enterprise modeling principles
|
||
- [x] **Formalization**: OWL 2 EL ontology implementation (structural)
|
||
- [x] **Implementation**: Turtle serialization with formal axioms
|
||
- [ ] **Evaluation**: **PENDING** - Requires empirical validation
|
||
### 2.2 Knowledge Sources
|
||
**Primary Authoritative Sources**:
|
||
- [x] EDGY 23: Language Foundations (Intersection Group, 2023) - Analyzed
|
||
- [x] Function Behaviour Structure Ontology (Gero, 1990) - Conceptually aligned
|
||
- [x] Graph Theory in Enterprise Architecture - Conceptually integrated
|
||
**Secondary Supporting Sources**:
|
||
- [x] ArchiMate 3.1 Enterprise Architecture Modeling Language - Reviewed
|
||
- [x] Systems Thinking in Practice (Checkland, 1999) - Conceptually aligned
|
||
- [x] Enterprise Engineering methodologies - Reviewed
|
||
**Validation Sources** (**PENDING**):
|
||
- [ ] Real-world enterprise case studies
|
||
- [ ] Expert domain knowledge validation
|
||
- [ ] Tool implementation feedback
|
||
### 2.3 Design Principles (Implemented)
|
||
- [x] **Principle P1**: **Three-Primitive Constraint**: All object properties must specialize link, flow, or tree primitives ensuring consistent relationship semantics. **Verified structurally**
|
||
- [x] **Principle P2**: **Facet Coverage**: Every element must be viewable through at least one facet ensuring complete enterprise perspective coverage. **Implemented axiomatically**
|
||
- [x] **Principle P3**: **Graph Connectivity**: All elements must connect to at least one other element preventing isolated nodes in enterprise graphs. **Implemented axiomatically**
|
||
- [x] **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]
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
- [x] **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
|
||
|
||
- [x] **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
|
||
|
||
- [x] **Verification Status**: **Axiomatically implemented** using OWL equivalence classes
|
||
---
|
||
## 5. FORMAL AXIOMS AND CONSTRAINTS (IMPLEMENTED - UNTESTED)
|
||
- [x] ** 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 ] .
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
- [x] **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 ]
|
||
) ] .
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
- [x] **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 ] .
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
- [x] **Status**: **Implemented**
|
||
- [ ] **Status: Requires validation with test data**
|
||
---
|
||
## 6. VALIDATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE - CURRENT STATUS
|
||
### 6.1 Completed Validations
|
||
- [x] **Status: Structural Consistency. V**alidated
|
||
- Manual syntax checking completed
|
||
- EDGY 23 specification alignment verified
|
||
- Relationship hierarchy consistency confirmed
|
||
- Axiom syntax validation completed
|
||
- [x] **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 .
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
- [x] **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 .
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
- [x] **Status: C**once**ptually sound **
|
||
- [ ] **Requires validation in tools**
|
||
---
|
||
## 8. REQUIRED VALIDATION ROADMAP
|
||
### Phase 1: Automated Validation (IMMEDIATE - 1-2 weeks)
|
||
**Critical Tests**:
|
||
1. **Reasoner Consistency Checking**
|
||
- Execute HermiT, Pellet, ELK reasoners
|
||
- Verify no logical contradictions
|
||
- Document any inconsistencies found
|
||
2. **OOPS! Pitfall Analysis**
|
||
- Upload ontology to automated scanner
|
||
- Analyze detected pitfalls
|
||
- Prioritize and address critical issues
|
||
3. **Basic SPARQL Query Testing**
|
||
- Set up triple store with ontology
|
||
- Execute all competency question queries
|
||
- Verify syntactic correctness
|
||
|
||
### Phase 2: Performance Validation
|
||
**Scalability Tests**:
|
||
1. **Load Testing**
|
||
- Generate synthetic enterprise data (100, 1K, 10K elements)
|
||
- Measure classification time and memory usage
|
||
- Document performance characteristics
|
||
2. **Query Performance**
|
||
- Benchmark competency question response times
|
||
- Test complex graph traversal queries
|
||
- Identify optimization requirements
|
||
|
||
### Phase 3: Domain Expert Validation
|
||
**Expert Review**:
|
||
1. **Ontological Review**
|
||
- Independent ontologist validation
|
||
- OntoClean methodology peer review
|
||
- Conceptual coherence assessment
|
||
2. **Domain Expert Review**
|
||
- Enterprise architect practitioner feedback
|
||
- Real-world use case validation
|
||
- Alignment with enterprise design practice
|
||
|
||
### Phase 4: Tool Integration Testing
|
||
**Ecosystem Validation**:
|
||
1. **Tool Compatibility**
|
||
- Protégé import/export testing
|
||
- SPARQL endpoint deployment
|
||
- Visualization tool integration
|
||
2. **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**:
|
||
- [x] **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**:
|
||
- [x] **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**:
|
||
1. Complete automated validation suite (Phase 1)
|
||
2. Perform scalability and performance testing (Phase 2)
|
||
3. Obtain independent expert validation (Phase 3)
|
||
4. 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
|
||
1. Intersection Group. "EDGY 23: Language Foundations." Open Source Enterprise Design Framework, 2023.
|
||
2. Gero, J.S. "Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design." AI Magazine, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 26-36, 1990.
|
||
3. Keet, C. Maria. "An Introduction to Ontology Engineering." College Publications, London, 2018.
|
||
|
||
### 12.2 Standards and Specifications
|
||
1. W3C OWL Working Group. "OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Document Overview (Second Edition)." W3C Recommendation, December 2012.
|
||
2. The Open Group. "ArchiMate 3.1 Specification." The Open Group Standard, 2019.
|
||
|
||
### 12.3 Methodological References
|
||
1. 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.
|
||
2. 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.
|