John (01)
1. Is it difficult to reverse engineer because there are many
possibilities in C=>OWL translation (non-unique and also un-symmetric
mapping) for the same statement compiled originally by OWL=>C
translator?
2. Is it true that there is unique (1:1) way of OWL=>C or just that we
know the particular translation because we chose it?
3. If there is no statement by statement translation or reverse
engineering possible, perhaps we should use semantic awareness concepts
and reverse engineer by functional equivalence to deliver the same
functionality in OWL that we have in the originally translated code
(logical sub divisions that make functional sense)? As we are struggling
with triples and higher order relationships and to define agreeable
rules among relationships among Things, we have some ways to go before
we can develop such aware software. I have participated in a team that
has reverse engineered ERP by functional and services groupings rather
by code. In this case specific language choice becomes User's choice
(e.g. Cobol, C, Java, or a mix with COTS but delivering the same
functional equivalence). (02)
Thanks.
Ravi (03)
(Dr. Ravi Sharma) Senior Enterprise Architect (04)
Vangent, Inc. Technology Excellence Center (TEC) (05)
8618 Westwood Center Drive, Suite 310, Vienna VA 22182
(o) 703-827-0638, (c) 313-204-1740 www.vangent.com (06)
Professional viewpoints do not necessarily imply organizational
endorsement. (07)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F.
Sowa
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 11:26 PM
To: Pat Hayes
Cc: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] what is open ontology? (08)
Pat, (09)
There is no difference in principle between compiling a
procedural representation (such as C) or a declarative
representation (such as OWL or predicate calculus) to some
internal form that is extremely difficult to reverse engineer. (010)
> How? You are saying that an ontology can be usable as an ontology
> but cannot be reverse engineered to be humanly readable? (011)
For example, one could translate an OWL ontology to Prolog code,
which is humanly readable. But then it is possible to compile
that Prolog code to a C program and from C to machine code. A
reverse compiler from machine code might be able to generate
a C program without comments, but it would be extremely difficult
to reverse engineer the original Prolog or OWL from that C code. (012)
JFS>> If those internal forms are kept proprietary, the effect
>> would be to keep the ontology as "closed" as any program. (013)
PH> Except that the source is freely available in the OOR, right? (014)
Yes. That's why it's called "open". Many businesses want to
provide services to their customers, but they do not want their
competitors to copy the ontologies that drive those services.
For that reason, they are not likely to deposit their operational
ontologies in the OOR. (015)
John (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (017)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (018)
|