Here we see how the three fundamental ontologies from POET
are woven together.
On the right we show the Structural ontology - MACE. On the
left the Transformational ontology - MAGMA. Down the middle the Ontology for
the fundamental parts of all Enterprises - DOTS.
Looking at the centre, it is the transformation domain we
are interested in but we set that domain in the context of the Direction Domain
above which drives it and the Operations domain below which it “delivers” into.
(It should be noted however, that the transformation domain could also
“deliver” into the Direction, Support or Transformation domains, but only the
Operation domain is shown for clarity)
The words in the boxes give some examples of the Structural
and Transformational information you would expect to see at each level.
In what way does your
Enterprise consider Transformational as well as Structural models at all
What ontologies and
meta-models are you using?
How do they map to, and fit
into, the POET Ontology?
Are they any gaps or overlaps?
If there are gaps and or
overlaps, is it useful to know that?
What will you do to fill the
gaps and remove the overlaps?