I am not a Protege, SUMO or KIF advocate. My concerns are generally
business related (and specifically UBL related), so I am interested in
subjects like the Ecommerce Services and Transportation ontologies. I spend
a great deal of time working with the various XML standards organizations
(RosettaNet, OAG, CIDX, OASIS, ANSI, others) to bring business perspective
to those standards. I was merely pointing out that, regardless of whether
Protege, SUMO, KIF or something else is being used for the ontology work,
the outcomes need to reflect the business needs, as in the example below,
where the business issue is that the function called/invoked cannot itself
contain any business data/information (all of the data must be supplied to
the function, not be contained within the function), since the data supplied
to the function can vary based on the business process being supported. The
issue, as I understand it, of the incompatibilities of Protege, SUMO and KIF
regarding translating/transforming from one to another, and the new
work/rework that is implied, are a subject that I'm sure you all will figure
out... (01)
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Pease [mailto:adampease@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 12:11 PM
To: [ontolog-forum] ; '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] KIF vs. Protege - part deux (02)
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. (03)
Adam (04)
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
> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|