Bob,
This makes sense to me, but I don't see how it's related to the issue at
hand about frames vs. first order logic. (01)
Adam (02)
At 12:07 PM 9/12/2003 -0700, McHugh, Bob - MWT wrote:
>I'm not an expert in ontological matters, but I am very knowledgeable about
>trading partner integration, and I suspect the point here is simply that the
>conversion rate must always be specified and that it can vary depending on
>the trading partners in its precision (partner A uses a factor of 1.2,
>partner B uses a factor of 1.23, and partner C uses a factor of 1.2345),
>rather than being standardized (a factor of 1.23456789 always assumed to be
>acceptable to all entities globally)...
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 11:56 AM
>To: [ontolog-forum] ; [ontolog-forum]
>Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] KIF vs. Protege - part deux
>
>
>John,
> I'm not sure, but it seems like you are agreeing with me. Making a
>conversion rate explicit is just what the first order logic representation
>does, since an axiom specifies the conversion, rather than the conversion
>being embedded in procedural code. On the other hand, one could also state
>the conversion rate in a frame representation, and that rate could be used
>by procedural code to perform the conversion. It doesn't seem to me that
>your point has a bearing on the issue at hand. Could you clarify your
>point further?
>
>Adam
>
>At 11:26 AM 9/12/2003 -0700, Yunker, John wrote:
> >Adam,
> >
> >The problem with using this type of function in business is that specific
> >business agreements (either governing law or individual contract) can
> >stipulate the exact constant to be used in such conversions. This is one
> >reason that B2B standards like EDI have left fields for conversion rates,
> >and also had well formed rules for information availability, but have
> >stopped short of actually specifying such numbers.
> >
> >This doesn't alliviate the requriement for the ontology to understand the
> >functional aspects of such relationships, but does point out the
> >requirement that all information required by the function be visible
> >outside of the function, including any conversion factors.
> >
> >In the ontology, expressing the conversion factor, with a default value
> >should be sufficient to drive the business aspects.
> >
> >John
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 8:20 PM
> >To: [ontolog-forum]
> >Subject: [ontolog-forum] KIF vs. Protege - part deux
> >
> >
> >Leo,
> > I read the following summary from Kurt on today's minutes -
> >
> >"The position that Leo and the other participants at last week's conference
> >call took was that Protege is an appropriate starting point because of
> >offers a number of practical advantages. "
> >
> >If you agree with this summary, what do you think are those practical
> >advantages, and how do you address the issue I stated in a message from
> >8/19 (copied below)
> >
> >--------------------------------
> > For example, let's say an order is for 2 Meters of 5cm by 5cm lumber,
> >and there's a US supplier for this product. We'd like to have axioms that
> >define these units, and support conversion. SUMO has the axiom
> >
> >(=>
> > (instance ?NUMBER RealNumber)
> > (equal
> > (MeasureFn ?NUMBER Inch)
> > (MeasureFn (MultiplicationFn ?NUMBER 0.02539999969303608) Meter)))
> >
> >Since Protege can't handle functions, you'd have to rewrite this axiom,
> >probably hard-coded as a procedural attachment, as opposed to expressed
> >declaratively. If it were just an issue of rewriting one axiom, it
> >wouldn't be a big deal, but there are hundreds of uses of MeasureFn in
> >SUMO, not to mention all the uses of other functions and expressions that
> >can't be represented in Protege. Your answer seems to be to include them
> >in comments, but the issue is not limited to comments. If we represent the
> >example in SUMO and KIF we have something like
> >
> >(orderItem LumberOrder27 OrderItem23)
> >(item OrderItem23 LumberObject4)
> >(length LumberObject4 (MeasureFn 2 Meter))
> >
> >Now, if you try to represent this in Protege, you're stuck, because you
> >can't use the function. As you can see, this problem is not solved by
> >including the axiom in a comment, because the terms in those axioms need to
> >be used. To capture this same information in Protege, we'd wind up with
> >something like
> >
> >(orderItem LumberOrder27 OrderItem23)
> >(item OrderItem23 LumberObject4)
> >(length LumberObject4 "2 Meters")
> >
> >or slightly better:
> >
> >(orderItem LumberOrder27 OrderItem23)
> >(item OrderItem23 LumberObject4)
> >(length LumberObject4 Measure7)
> >(unit Measure7 Meter)
> >(value Measure7 2)
> >
> >Now the problem is that those terms are totally unconnected to SUMO
> >axioms. The new relations of "unit" and "value" are redundant with SUMO's
> >MeasureFn, and lack all the axioms which define MeasureFn.
> >
> >The result of this is a large amount of duplication of effort. You might
> >as well discard SUMO and start from scratch, which would of course mean a
> >lot of waste.
> >----------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >Adam
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> >Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
> >http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> >Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> >Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> >To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> >Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
> >http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> >Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> >Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> >To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (04)
|