Bill, (01)
There is a very simple reason for that. As they say in the land
of freedom fries, Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. (02)
> ... if ontology-building is an exercise in application-specific
> modeling among a constrained group of users, then why is it not
> just a variant on what we already do with UML which goes under
> the more pedestrian name of data modeling? Surely it cannot be
> the use of this or that formalism which delivers the desired
> interoperability properties. (03)
People prefer to reinvent wheels so that they can impose their
own brand name on them. If they adopted somebody else's brand,
they would have to share the royalties, profits, notoriety, etc. (04)
UML is a brand name for a collection of established notations,
such as type hierarchies, E-R diagrams, etc. And E-R diagrams
are P. P. Chen's rebranded version of Bachman diagrams. (05)
John (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)
|