ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Anders W.Tell" <opensource@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:39:12 +0100
Message-id: <4977A410.7000603@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Btw I forgot to mention that PSL is available in CLIF format.    (01)

Talk about reuse and harmonisation ;)    (02)

thanks
/anders    (03)


Anders W.Tell wrote:
> Rich,
>
> A positive example could be the way PSL from NIST is being *re*used in 
> some OMG standards. Both BusinessProcessDM and Executable is being 
> integrated with PSL through the work of Conrad Bock and others.
>
> Executable UML
> A compact and computationally complete subset of UML 2 with a full 
> specification of its semantics defined operationally and declaratively. 
> The operational semantics is executable model with methods written in 
> Java, with a mapping to UML Activity Diagrams. The declarative semantics 
> is specified in first order logic and based on PSL.
>
> The Business Process Definition Metamodel (BPDM) is the first standard 
> metamodel to facilitate development of service-oriented architectures 
> within and among enterprises by unifying internal business or department 
> processes (orchestration) with interactions between businesses or 
> departments (choreography). It is also the first standard metamodel to 
> provide uniform performance, enactment, or execution of business 
> processes by modeling common-sense notions of time and process, as 
> captured in the Process Specification Language.
>
>
> thanks
> /anders w. tell
> /Toolsmiths
>
>
> Rich Cooper wrote:
>   
>> Dear All
>>
>> It appears that the ontology effort has too many cooks and too little brew.
>> Everyone wants ontology movements to succeed, but the economics of applying
>> ontological methods isn't compelling enough to get agreement.  
>>
>> The history of IEEE SUO, W3C, Cyc, and all but the Dublin Core ontology (so
>> minimal in scope) projected into future work leaves me very pessimistic
>> about ever seeing a widely subscribed ontology for all but the smallest
>> domains (e.g., Dublin Core).  Maybe it just isn't feasible to standardize
>> any large ontology.  
>>
>> Is our work producing benefits after all these years?  Positive examples
>> would be useful to discuss before we self destruct on these issues.  
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>  
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  
>
>
>       (04)


_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (05)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>