[Top] [All Lists]

[model-challenge] The modeling benchmark challenge is not the ontology s

To: "'Modeling Benchmark Challenge'" <model-challenge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: henson graves <henson.graves@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 18:43:20 -0500
Message-id: <SNT106-DS39266EA5D437C1B3CF63FE42C0@xxxxxxx>
Good point, Peter,    (01)

The modeling benchmark challenge is not the ontology summit. If your
interest is primarily to discuss the concept of marriage please do not sign
of for the Modeling Benchmark Challenge list. The Modeling Benchmark
Challenge is not intended as a discussion about what marriage means or can
mean. Most of the discussion on the ontology summit list about marriage is
not relevant to the Modeling Benchmark concerns.    (02)

The Modeling Benchmark Challenge is to determine if specific modeling
languages, e.g., FOL or OWL have specific capability. Marriage as a
situation was chose as it is likely the simplest example of what Cory calls
a composite structure. For this purpose a marriage has a single husband and
wife which are in a spousal relationship.  Other more complex examples occur
in manufactured products, molecular biology, and other domains. For the
challenge one could replace Marriage with your favorite diatomic molecule.
Here a diatomic molecule is a molecule composed only of two atoms which are
bonded together. The bonding relationship is analogous to the spousal
relationship.    (03)

The kind of modeling/logic representation that I am looking for would be
sufficiently precise that it provably rules out other structures which do
not conform to the pattern described by the model.  The marriage model is to
describes not a single marriage but marriages. The modeling quality
evaluation is precision: are non-intended models are excluded.  This
requires that the language have some implicit or explicit notion of
semantics. This problem is simplified to only be concerned with the static
case. Later temporal aspects will be investigated.    (04)

Simon suggested something to the effect that in general it is not considered
wise to use precision on its own as a metric for evaluating systems.
Whatever that means it is not what is going on here. This is a language
precision criterion. Of course it needs to be made more precise than I have
given here.  The results of analysis affect the choice of language for
specific modeling applications and so it is a legitimate question of whether
a particular language can be used to satisfy a specific precision criteria.
Sorting out this example goes a long way to deal with what Cory calls
composite structures - which are common in many domains.     (05)

I you have anything to offer in the way of a model or axioms in some
formalized language please send it to the model challenge mailing list.
Maybe I missed something, but I have yet to see anyone actually try to give
FOL axioms.     (06)

-----Original Message-----
From: model-challenge-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:model-challenge-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Yim
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 5:40 PM
To: Modeling Benchmark Challenge
Cc: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [model-challenge] [OT] relocating the conversation [was - Re:
[ontology-summit] First Model Bench Challenge]    (07)

Good point, Jack! This is not the Ontology Summit discourse (which concluded
with the 4/12-13 Symposium and the publication of the
Communique.)    (08)

This is an extended/new activity - one convened by Henson Graves, under the
project "Modeling Benchmark Challenge"
&    (09)

Anyone interested should subscribe themselves to the [model-challenge]
mailing list -
... or simply send a blank email from your subscribing address to
<model-challenge-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> and verify as instructed when you
receive the mailman system message.    (010)

Henson and All: we should be moving the conversation to the
[model-challenge] list (and have this conversation with the much smaller
number of people who are truly interested) and leave the 500 or so members
of the [ontology-summit] list alone.    (011)

Anyone interested: kindly subscribe yourself, and respond (reply) to the
threaded conversation by posting to <model-challenge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
(instead of <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>), please.    (012)

Thanks & regards. =ppy
--    (013)

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Jack Ring <jring7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have not been able to follow this in detail. Is this exercise intended
to help illustrate federation?
> If so, I wonder why marriage is considered federation rather than fusion.
> No wonder few engineers are ever asked for a second honeymoon. ;-)    (014)

>...[snip]...    (015)

Message Archives:
Subscribe: mailto:model-challenge-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files:
Wiki:    (016)

Message Archives: 
Subscribe: mailto:model-challenge-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Shared Files: 
Wiki:    (017)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>