Matthew (01)
Officially
"The following are within the scope of ISO 10303:
the representation of product information, including components and
assemblies;
the exchange of product data, including storing, transferring,
accessing, and archiving."
from ISO 10303-1 Clause 1: Scope (02)
Which, if the ontology is part of the product, puts an ontology within
scope. Similarly, ISO 15926 states: (03)
"This International Standard specifies a representation of information
associated with engineering,
construction and operation of process plants. This representation
supports:
- the information requirements of the process industries in all phases
of a plant's life-cycle;
...
- sharing and integration of information amongst all parties involved in
the plant's life-cycle. (04)
The following are within the scope of ISO 15926:
- a generic, conceptual data model that supports representation of all
life-cycle aspects of a process plant;
- reference data that represents information common to many process
plants and users;
- scope and information requirements for additional reference data;
- methods for the analysis of requirements and development of reference
data;
- procedures for registration and maintenance of reference data;" (05)
So, while you are right that ontology representation is not generally
thought of as within the scope of STEP, as ever, this is a matter of
interpretation. ISO 184/SC4 will create the standards that will rule for
1000 years! (06)
More seriously, the comment was about the distinctions needed to
coherently compare ontologies, although probably the most significant
element was the observation that an ontology is a property of one view
of a domain of discourse, and not a thing (product) in its own right. (07)
Sean Barker
Bristol, UK (08)
________________________________ (09)
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew
West
Sent: 06 February 2009 16:53
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] FW: RDF & RDFS (was... Is there
something Imissed?) (010)
Dear Sean, (011)
Godfrey, Matthew, Ian et al (012)
STEP makes a nice distinction between a property, the
representation of the property and the presentation of the property (013)
[MW] I agree. Both Ian and I have been involved in developing
parts of ISO 10303 (STEP)... (014)
For example, in mechanical CAD a physical part has a property =
"shape" which has a representation = "surface model" which may be shown
on a display as presentation="shaded image". (015)
It may also have property="shape", representation="Constructive
Solid Geometry" and presentation="edges" (016)
Further, the same representations also be used for other
properties such as the envelope for a mechanism, or the cavity inside a
part (useful for modelling flow though a jet engine). (017)
[MW] Geometry is what STEP is good at. We (well David Leal if
truth be told) adapted the STEP geometry for use in ISO 15926. (018)
We could therefore say that an *ontology is a property of a
(view of) universe of discourse ;-) ; RDF can be used as a
representation of the *ontology, and XML as a presentation of that
representation. (019)
[MW] However, I do not recall ontology representation as being
within the scope of ISO 10303 J (020)
Regards (021)
Matthew West (022)
Information Junction
Tel: +44 560 302 3685
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (023)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered
in England and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden
City, Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (024)
Notes: (025)
1) I use *ontology to indicate Ian's real world meaning, as
opposed to ontology meaning a formal system, the preferred usage in this
forum. (026)
2) I am using "property" in the STEP sense - "a move in a
language game, which allows one to talk about a thing having properties
such as shape, material, cost, duration, etc, without admitting these
things are subclasses of a general class called 'property'" (027)
3) No need to discuss what is in people's heads - ontologies are
manifest in behaviour, particularly processes dependent on
classification, such as asking the grocer for three red apples, he goes
to the draw marked apples. etc (028)
Sean Barker
Bristol, UK (029)
________________________________ (030)
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Godfrey
Rust
Sent: 06 February 2009 07:56
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] RDF & RDFS (was... Is there
something I missed?) (031)
*** WARNING *** (032)
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. (033)
Matthew West wrote: (034)
Talking about what is in someone's head just doesn't cut
it I'm afraid. It is at best a loose way of talking. Where you have
several things that have something in common, what you do have is an
abstraction, and my extensional analysis would make that a class. So if
I have 5 copies of the same content, there is a class that represents
the pattern that is common to those 5 files. And if I have the "same"
ontology that is represented in different languages, then there is a
class that represents that sameness. (035)
This is consistent with the analysis that is generally
used in music, book and journal publishing metadata standards such as
ONIX and DDEX, and the widely adopted bibliographic FRBR analysis, of an
"abstraction" or "abstract work" with any number of "manifestations". It
may apply to the play "Hamlet" or the song "Yesterday", which retain a
unique perceived identity but may be expressed in a wide variety of
manifestations in different genres, languages and so on, and it may
apply as well to an ontology or computer program. As Matthew points out,
these function (and very usefully) as abstract classes representing
common content: the entire network of music copyright collection
societies operates to collect money for the use of just such
abstractions. (036)
The elusive problem of identity remains, however. The
decision about whether a particular manifestation really is the song
"Yesterday" or just something that sounds a bit like it is something
which exists in someone's head and, in the content industries, is
ultimately settled where necessary in a court of a law using reasonable
but ultimately arbitrary criteria (such as musicological analysis).
Identity between the underlying abstractions of two ontologies is in
general more testable. (037)
Godfrey Rust
Chief Data Architect
Rightscom/Ontologyx
Linton House LG01
164/180 Union Street, London SE1 0LH
www.rightscom.com <http://www.rightscom.com>
Direct +20 8579 8655
Rightscom Office +20 7620 4433
Mobile 07967 963674 (038)
----- Original Message ----- (039)
From: Matthew West
<mailto:dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx> (040)
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
<mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (041)
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 7:28 AM (042)
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] RDF & RDFS (was...
Is there something I missed?) (043)
Dear Pat, (044)
PS - I'm not sure about where this idea
of a mental model of an ontology
came from. I never mentioned it, and I
certainly don't have an ontology in
my head. Of course the ontology has to
be represented in some way - CL,
RDFS, OWL, UML, EXPRESS, arse-barcodes,
who cares ? (045)
What is this thing that is in common between al
these different file formats? Where is it, if not in your head? This is
rather like the old chestnut of saying what exactly a program is, if you
can write the 'same' program in several wildly different programming
languages. For example, quicksort can be implemented in just about any
programming language, and its still quicksort. In CS we have the useful
distinction between algorithm and program, maybe we need a similar
terminological distinction for ontologies. Any suggestions? (046)
[MW] Ok. So is the quicksort program in your
head the same as the quicksort program in my head (I even remember
writing one once in Basic)? Talking about what is in someone's head just
doesn't cut it I'm afraid. It is at best a loose way of talking. Where
you have several things that have something in common, what you do have
is an abstraction, and my extensional analysis would make that a class.
So if I have 5 copies of the same content, there is a class that
represents the pattern that is common to those 5 files. And if I have
the "same" ontology that is represented in different languages, then
there is a class that represents that sameness. (047)
Regards (048)
Matthew West (049)
Information Junction (050)
Tel: +44 560 302 3685 (051)
Mobile: +44 750 3385279 (052)
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (053)
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (054)
This email originates from Information Junction
Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 6632177. (055)
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way,
Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (056)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (057)
|