All
Some comments on the RFP (01)
section 6.1:
- fUML is -- to the best of my knowledge -- not equipped with a model theoretic
semantics, but with an operational semantics
- "it is not possible to find a single logical language …, it is necessary ..."
This point is critical, and it should say why.
- "Heterogeneity can be seen …" -- in this paragraph you only talk about
ontologies (and not about models and specifications). Is that intended? (02)
- use case 1: "OntoIOP will free …" -- this is the first time that OntoIOP is
mentioned without any explanation (not even of the acronym). Also, it seems to
me that the use case should not name a specific solution, after all this is an
RFP. Shouldn't it say something: the use for the solicited language would be to
ban …"
- use case 2: see use case 1
- use case 3: "shall be checked for consistency"? That sounds odd. I think this
use case needs work. Not only is "shall" very formal, the use case should
motivate why it is useful to have the ability to check consistency across the
different UML diagram types.
- use case 4: I don't know how much knowledge you presuppose of the reader, but
it seems that you expect the reader to fill in a lot of blanks here. For once,
it does not say how the language is used in the scenario, nor does it mention
its benefit.
- use case 5: this use case lacks a verb phrase. :-) In other words, it is way
to terse. (03)
I don't want to go through the other use-cases. In my opinion, they all seem to
be written for the already initiated, and not for people who don't know
OntoIOP. I would assume that it would be more effective to have less use cases,
but spell them out in more detail and explicitly show the benefit of having
the kind of metalanguage the RFP calls for. (04)
- "Another diversity is that of …" This sentence is hard to parse, I don't
think it is grammatical.
- [the same] I am not sure why this is not a use case. Or is this all part of
Use Case 9? This is not clear.
- [the same]: there is a terminology switch to "logical theory". I would avoid
that, and instead speak about "ontology" or "model", because "logical theory"
sounds too academic.
-[the list following "use": I am not sure how much of this will be
understandable to the OMG folks; some of it sounds very academic (e.g.,
interpretation and refinement of logical theories), which may be a turned off
to people who think that you are proposing to standardize a research project.
If I were you, I'd try to describe the problem in a more accessible way before
-- or even better without -- introducing this laundry list of technical terms.
More importantly, it remains unclear from the text right now, why and how an
answer to the RFP would solve the problem. (05)
More to come.
Fabian (06)
_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:ontoiop-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontoiop-forum/
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontoiop-forum/
Community Files (open): http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntoIOp (07)
|