John, (01)
At 12:21 PM 9/12/2003 -0700, Yunker, John wrote:
>My point is more trying to relate the depth of our ontological mapping to
>the use cases that are in front of us. Our use cases are all related to
>information exchange supporting integration of partners towards
>collaborative process execution.
>
>While I can see some use cases for the ability to exchange these
>functions, The only use case I can see for directly capturing the
>functions is to help identify the parameters that must be exchanged. (02)
I'm unclear on what you mean here. Both frames and logic can be used to
capture and exchange information on units conversion. The problem is that
Protege can't handle the form that's in SUMO, and therefore using Protege
would force a dramatic duplication of effort, in recoding a product the
group agreed to build on. (03)
>The benefits of Protégé for a) collaborative definition of ontological
>elements; (04)
One can collaborate to define ontological elements in any ontology
language. How is this relevant to a choice of KIF vs Protege? (05)
>and b) use of those definitions to drive tools; (06)
Here again, why and how is this specific to one formalism or the other? (07)
> may have benefit that outweighs the ability to actually capture function
> logic, especially given the domain specific constraints on actual use of
> the logic once captured. (08)
I'm still not sure what you mean here or how it bears on the KIF vs.
Protege issue. What are the "domain specific constraints" on actual use of
logic, and how does this differ from any domain specific constraints on any
other formalisms? I can't see that there are any domain specific issues
for any general purpose representation languages such as Protege, KIF, SQL,
F-Logic etc. (09)
>The reason I brought up the B2B constraint on functions was to help in
>that decision, not to argue that capturing the functional logic was irrelevant. (010)
I see that, but in turn do not understand how your point is relevant to the
KIF vs. Protege issue, which I was addressing. If it wasn't intended to be
relevant to that issue, that's ok, but deserves clarifying. (011)
Adam (012)
>John
>
>-----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
> (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
|