Dear Pat, (01)
>
> MW - one request for clarification:
>
> [MW] >
> > MW: I'm afraid I do not agree with Pat C at all. I have
> spent much of
> > my life doing business analaysis for systems design, and reviewing
> > data models produced by others. I am always surprised at just how
> > different (and usually limited) peoples mental models are.
> I have yet
> > to see two data models of the same application look the
> same except by
> > cut and paste.
> >
>
> I am well aware that models created in isolation from each
> other will vary
> widely. That is a restatement of the problem. The hypothesis of the
> 'Conceptual Defining Vocabulary' states that it will be
> possible to solve
> that problem with a common ontology of agreed basic concepts
> that are used
> to specify the meanings of the more specialized concepts in
> the different
> models. (02)
MW: I agree it is possible to come up with a common ontology of
basic concepts that can be used to integrate the diverse models
you talk about. I have done this myself with ISO 15926. However,
you are claiming that there is ONE such ontology which we all
share by some sort of osmosis. The point I was trying to make
about all the different data models is that there is not such
ONE ontology. I beleive there are several possible ontologies with
different ontological foundations, each of which would be quite
capable of helping to integrate diverse other ontologies of
whatever form. (03)
MW: Further you are claiming that there are a limited set of
foundation objects from which all others can be defined. This
also does not sit true with me. I have seen new primitive
concepts arise at almost any and every level of an ontology. I
agree that it is very useful when classes can be defined as the
intersection of some other classes, but it doesn't actually happen
that often for me (though I admitedly usually leave these to
be implied, rather than making them explicit). (04)
MW: Just as a simple example, can you show how you would move
from even a relatively general class like pump, to centrifugal
pump? Where do you get the centrifugal from?
>
> ** The relevant question is, when a group of people who are
> determined to
> find a common model of *basic* concepts get together, what
> kinds of issues
> remain that cannot be resolved by sincere efforts to find ways to
> accommodate the needs of all of them? ** (05)
MW: My experience again is that whatever you choose, there will
be some people who will find it unpalatable enough to walk away.
I would certainly not waste my time with anything 3D as an example,
and there are others who would not countenance 4D.
>
> I am very interested in finding out just what kinds of
> residual problems
> there really are. Thus far the examples I have seen all resolve to a
> terminology clash - two different people want to use the same
> term to refer
> to concepts of different meaning. We know how to resolve terminology
> clashes - use different names or different namespaces for the
> different
> concepts. (06)
MW: That is not true for 3D/4D, it is about what sorts of things
physical objects (in particular) are. For a 4-dimensionalist they
are extended in time and have temporal parts, for a 3 Dimensionalist
they wholly exist now, pass through time, and do not have temporal
parts. The terminology is frankly irrelevant, it is the ideas that
are diametrically opposed. (07)
> If it is important to relate those concepts to
> each other, that
> takes a bit of work to analyze the reasons for the
> differences and find the
> relations between the two different representations. (08)
MW: Yes, you could put both 3D and 4D theories into some ontology
repository, and provide a mapping between them. This is quite possible.
But make no mistake, you now already have a lattice of theories and
two foundation ontologies, not one. Each physical object would be
represented twice, once as a 3D object and once as a 4D object.
>
> If there is a case where an effort of that kind could not arrive at
> agreement on how to include or reconcile some seemingly logically
> incompatible representations, I would very much like to learn
> what those
> problems are, in detail. (09)
MW: Just take a close look at what Pat H is saying about the
incompatibility between 3D and 4D.
>
> Pat
>
> Patrick Cassidy
> MICRA, Inc.
> 908-561-3416
> cell: 908-565-4053
> cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 6:41 AM
> > To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology similarity and accurate
> > communication
> >
> > Dear John and Pat H.,
> >
> > > >In other words, all the axioms are at the task level, and each
> > > >message sent between systems identifies what ontology is assumed.
> > >
> > > I agree that makes a certain sense, but Im less sanguine
> than you are
> > > about being able to neatly express relationships between
> ontologies.
> > > Not that such relations are impossible, but I think they
> will will be
> > > messier and more tangled, as Mala says in her recent
> message. Which
> > > is not necessarily a problem or something to avoid, just
> something we
> > > should be ready for.
> >
> > MW: I agree with Pat here, that just encouraging an
> unlimited number of
> > ontologies and saying we will map between them, is perhaps
> where we are
> > headed at the moment, but it is an expensive direction to
> take. My best
> > hope at the moment is to encourage convergence onto a limited number
> > of ontologies - say 10 or so. They would have clearly stated
> > foundations
> > where the differences would be known and understood, and
> mappings could
> > be provided. I think several is good, because that provides
> a market,
> > which will help to drive improvement. It might also be that
> some die,
> > and others are born.
> >
> > MW: I'm afraid I do not agree with Pat C at all. I have
> spent much of
> > my life doing business analaysis for systems design, and reviewing
> > data models produced by others. I am always surprised at just how
> > different (and usually limited) peoples mental models are.
> I have yet
> > to see two data models of the same application look the
> same except by
> > cut and paste.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Matthew West
> > Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
> > Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
> > Registered in England and Wales
> > Registered number: 621148
> > Registered office: Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
> >
> > Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
> > Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.shell.com
> > http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
|