The problem is there is no consensus on which terminology is right, or even
"better". The IFD which will help with this may be years away, ideally there
should be a way to enable simple communications about a limited set of terms
before that. (01)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 2:39 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] International Alliance for Interoperability (02)
Paola, Deborah, and Toby, (03)
PDM> how do you think these two levels of terminology should relate
> to each other? (04)
The very small number of relations and axioms of the terminology should be a
subset of the larger number used for the each of the detailed ontologies. (05)
PD> is there overlap? (06)
Yes. The detailed ontologies might be inconsistent with one another.
The small number of relations and axioms in the gross-level terminology should
contain only the common consistent core. (07)
PDM> would would some of the relationships in the low level
> specification also be present in the higher spec, or do you > envisage a
>crisper distinction (08)
The terms 'gross level' and 'detailed level' should not be confused wit
low-level vs high-level. For example, the word 'door' is not likely to
represent a concept in an upper-level ontology. But it is such a common word
that it's likely to occur in any large terminology. The relations and axioms
used for a gross-level description of a door should be consistent with all the
detailed ontologies of the building industry. (09)
DM> The International Alliance for Interoperability has changed
> its name to building SMART international... (010)
I noticed that in my Googling. But I used the old name because the word
'interoperability' has been kicked around a lot on this forum. I wanted to
emphasize how the word is used by people who are actually building
interoperable systems. (011)
DM> Today, even though the files are huge and hard to push around
> or share real time, most building models are "at the gross > level, there is
>very little difference between an ontology and > a terminology".
>Nevertheless, accurate models at this level can > be useful to public
>services such as fire departments to exchange > basic information about
>building configurations and types because > simple accuracy is all that is
>needed. (012)
I agree. The terminology should be accurate enough for the building contractor
to tell the fire department how to enter and escape from a burning building.
The precise details about door sizes and screw threads are not needed for such
messages. (013)
TC> The IFC's themselves are large pile of incompatible semantics /
> domains functions with defined interfaces (IDM) between adjacent > ones.
>Structural concrete has little to say to steel framing to > energy code
>compliance....
>
> BuildingServicePerformance is striving to create a language about > what
>service, not physical attributes, are provided by buildings > that could be
>combined with performance metrics (energy) to define > real effective
>operations. That bridging effort is not here yet...
>
> Smart grids speak today almost always from the perspective of > the Utility,
>and not from that of the customer.
>
> Plenty of Semantics. Plenty of Ontologies. Not much mutual > understanding
>yet. (014)
Those are good examples from real world applications, and they have serious
implications for anyone working on proposed ontologies. (015)
Before we worry about interoperability between the *computers* used by the
building managers and the fire department, we have to coordinate the
terminology used by *people* who actually work with and live in those buildings. (016)
I don't want to dismiss debates about theoretical issues, but absolute
precision in an ontology is useless if it creates more confusion than
enlightenment for the people who do the work and live with the results. (017)
Bottom line: Any precise, formal, detailed ontology should be compatible with
the terminology that people actually know, understand, and use. (018)
John Sowa (019)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (020)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (021)
|