John, (01)
My point was not that one could not specify how to draw a line
in logic, but that specifying the line does not actually draw it - for
that you have to translate some bit stream into so motor action, or to
switch the CRT beam on at a particular point, etc. My point being, that
organizations do not operate computers to make lights on the front flash
on or off, or as expensive room heaters. The meaning of a computer
system is always the behaviour of the organization that uses it. (02)
The reason for insisting on this point is that enterprise
integration is about the behaviour of the organizations, and in
particular, their behaviour in response to what their computer is
telling them. If I have a collection of designs for an aircraft, a set
of orders for parts and a stock of material, I expect to come in the
following day to have a set of appropriately shaped lumps of metal, not
a print out saying 'the machine could in theory make the parts you
require'. Treating enterprise integration as a matter of making a
program conform to specification, rather than fulfilling a business
need, can be very career limiting (someone else's project - the
automatic manufacture worked brilliantly). (03)
Perhaps a more useful question is not whether the ontology
corresponds (or what ever phrase does not upset the philosophers) to
reality, but what is the risk that I run if I assume you mean the same
thing that I do when we use a term from an ontology. If I read on the
menu of the Happy Haze pizza parlour '16 inch pizza with olives and
anchovies', I will be disappointed if all I get is a pizza with two
olives and two anchovies, disgruntled if I get one with feta and tuna,
and refuse to pay if all I get is a strip of cooked dough 16" bt 1"
instead of a circle 16" in diameter. However, at worst it will have cost
only a few quid (or dollars). If, instead of pizza, I am ordering
aircraft parts, then failing to fulfil the order exactly could cost
lives. (04)
One might hypothesise an 'ontology risk factor', being the
product of the difference between two interpretations of the same term
and the impact that the difference makes. Unless I can quantify these
risk factors, then I will not trust the Semantic Web for anything other
than low impact actions. If I can quantify these risks, I can then take
a proper risk reduction approach, accepting higher levels of impact
where the likelihood of differences is low, and reducing risks by
investing in verification that we mean the same thing. (05)
Do you know of any work looking at 'ontology risk factors' or
similar approaches? (06)
Sean Barker
Bristol, UK (07)
This mail is publicly posted to a distribution list as part of a process
of public discussion, any automatically generated statements to the
contrary non-withstanding. It is the opinion of the author, and does not
represent an official company view. (08)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> John F. Sowa
> Sent: 16 August 2007 18:26
> To: Barker, Sean (UK)
> Cc: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer Cake
>
>
> *** WARNING ***
>
> This mail has originated outside your organization, either
> from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
>
> Sean,
>
> I was away from my email for a while, and I'm just catching
> up with some of the backlog. And I'd like to respond to your
> comment of August 9th:
>
> JFS>> If you doubt my claim, choose any statement from any document
> >> that specifies any implemented computer program, and I'll
> >> show you either that it can be translated to this subset
> or >> that it is a "comment" that is not necessary for a
> complete >> specification.
>
> SB> I'm not sure that one can translate draw((0.0, 0.0), (1.0, 1.0))
> > into common logic in such a way that common logic draws a line.
>
> Actually, that example is very easy to translate to Common Logic.
> Following is a translation to CLIF (Common Logic Interchange Format):
>
> (= line (draw (point 0.0 0.0) (point 1.0 1.0)))
>
> And following is a translation to CGIF (Conceptual Graph Interchange
> Format):
>
> (point 0.0 0.0 | *p1) (point 1.0 1.0 | *p2) (draw ?p1 ?p2 | *line)
>
> In this example, 'draw' is a function that takes two points
> and returns a specification of the line between them, and
> 'point' is a function that takes two numbers and returns a
> specification of the point that has those coordinates. (And
> if you like, CL lets you define a polyadic version of 'point'
> that takes 2, 3, or N arguments to specify points in a space
> of those dimensions.)
>
> Of course, this translation does not actually "draw" a line
> any more than a computer program "draws" a line. But if you
> choose any way of specifying the representation for a line in
> any computer program, then it is possible to write CL axioms
> that specify an exactly equivalent specification -- and you
> can write those axioms in CLIF, CGIF, XCL, or any other
> dialect of CL.
>
> The actual task of printing or displaying that line would be
> performed by some hardware that takes the specification and
> causes the image to appear on some hardware. But every step
> of creating and transforming the bits and bytes that
> determine that image can be specified by CL in a way that is
> equivalent to any computer program you may choose.
>
> Although CL is *not* a programming language, it is possible
> to write a program that would interpret any CL specification
> in order to create the same data that would be generated by
> the equivalent program.
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> (09)
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
******************************************************************** (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)
|