Actually, it is also "database technology", which is purely structural,
though the 3-schema design paradigm starts from a conceptual schema
(the most semantics you ever have), refines to a logical schema,
further refines to a physical schema -- and then throws away the first
2 models or parks them as documents in someone's filing cabinet,
creates a data dictionary in which English statements tell interested
parties what the physical schema and data elements really mean. And of
course this approach is the same approach use by XML fans everywhere.
Semantics remains implicit, and so you are free to interpret however
you want. (01)
Thanks,
Leo (02)
_____________________________________________
Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation, Information Semantics
lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Information Discovery & Understanding, Command and
Control Center
Voice: 703-983-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305
Fax: 703-983-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA (03)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andreas
Tolk
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 2:28 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer Cake (04)
> The idea of a single syntax with two different incompatible semantics
> scares me. (05)
The technical terms for this form of phobia are "modeling & simulation
federation" and "service-oriented architecture:" We agree on a common
information exchange model, such as XML or OMT, but everything we
really
capture is the structure. Two models, services, etc. can implement the
meaning behind these pieces of information completely differently ...
that's why we are pressing the issue of formal models for
conceptualizations.
Enjoy the weekend
Andreas
============================== ;-)
Andreas Tolk, Ph.D.
Old Dominion University (06)
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 08/03/2007 02:20:36 PM: (07)
> >...I could accept the idea of a common notation for if-then rules,
> >but with two very clearly specified options for the semantics:
> >
> > 1. A purely classical FOL that is compatible with CL and its
> > subsets, such as Z, RDF(S), and OWL.
> >
> > 2. A negation-as-failure semantics that is compatible with the
> > ISO standard for Prolog.
> >
> >If you want that, then say so. But make it very, very clear that
> >the two semantics are *not* compatible -- and that no attempt to
> >exchange rules between the two versions of semantics should be
> >done, except under stringently controlled conditions.
>
> The idea of a single syntax with two different incompatible semantics
> scares me.
>
> K
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ (08)
> 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
> (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|