David, (01)
This is an interesting question whether a piece of technology is
ontological or not. I have had the opportunity to both participate in
the development of CCTS and also performed research relating to
technologies that addresses the same B2B problem space. (02)
An initial observation/assessment I would make is that CCTS is a
engineered "Data modeling technology, heavily constrained by XSD (XML
Schema) and EDIFACT data modeling tradition". (03)
In comparison with other ontological technologies one can observe that
it has significantly less formalism (if any at all), less rigor, less
expressiveness, less researched foundation, fewer critical reviews, etc.
In comparison with technologies such as UML2, OWL, DL, CL,KIF, IKL etc.
one can easily see CCTS limitations and in some cases awkwardness. It
*looks* like them but the rigor is not there. (04)
Another way of looking at CCTS is to look at the produced artifacts, the
components themselves. Do they possess excellent ontological qualities?
Could the use of a an alternative technology such as UML2 have produced
better components? (05)
One could argue quite strongly that the libraries could significantly have
been improved using something like UML2. Some of the libraries contains
many examples of resuse (axioms) opportunities lost due to CCTS
constraints and the EDIFACT modeling tradition. (06)
Since CCTS is not axiomatic one has to rely on textual definitions but
definitions such as below are all too common, or in some libraries the norm. (07)
Binary relation or attribute:
class: Accounting Entry
name of relation/attribute: Value Date
related class/type: Date Time
Definition: "The date, time, date time, or other date time value of the
value date of this accounting entry." (08)
Another comparison is related to the use of a concrete upper, mid, lower
level, economical, logistical, etc. ontologies in an effort to create a
sound backbone for developed components. There is little (to nothing)
that indicates that such structure are being used, and CCTS itself doesn't
really allow
it at all. (09)
Yet another observation relates to a key missing piece, the Contexts.
The context project has not yet been completed and seems to be based on
hierarchically organized values, i.e. structure with no apparent
semantics. I'm not aware that any of the last 20 years of context
logic research is being used. As a side note, the projects name is Unified
Context
Methodology (UCM) and a context researcher Pieter Wisse wrote "Why the
rhetoric of inflated claims?". In january I wrote paper presented at the VBMO
workshop in january,
outlining some ideas on how to add semantics (COT and MOT), integrated with
existing context logics,
to B2B messaging domain. (010)
All in all an assessment would be that a technology such as UML2 solves
the same problem and in general outperforms CCTS but with huge support
from educational facilities in almost every university with IS/IT
departments.
A positive note is that its easy to create XSD from CCTS data models,
although at an expense of ontological qualities. Maybe that is a
worthwhile trade-of worth. (011)
I would really like to hear from CCTS ontologists and reading about
their research views (no sales talk), including comparisons with
existing ontological technologies. (012)
thanks
/anders (013)
Peter Yim wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Back in 2004, a pilot project group from the Ontolog community had
> actually taken a stab at the this and did a mapping of the UN/CEFACT
> CCTS v2.01 to SUMO (and that family of FOL-based upper and middle
> ontologies). See an account of that at:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CctRepresentation
>
> I would also like to refer you to ongoing work of the OASIS SET TC
> (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=set ) and
> the talk on our archives which SET TC Chair, Asuman Dogac gave at
> Ontolog about that work - see:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid19LH
>
> Among folks in the community, I'd imagine folks like AsumanDogac,
> TimMcGrath, Anders Tell or Duane Nickull would probably be in a
> position to throw more light on this subject.
>
> Regards. =ppy
> --
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 8:34 AM, David Connelly - OAGi
> <dmconnelly@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> I have a question for the group. OAGi has built Release 2.01 of CCTS and
>> the Naming and Design Rules into OAGIS Release 9.X. We are planning to
>> build a Release 10 of OAGIS to adopt the new CCTS and NDR 3.0.
>>
>> We look at these as ontology technologies.
>>
>> I wonder what others think?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> David
>>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Ray
>> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 5:32 PM
>> To: 'Ontology Summit 2009'
>> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] URIs for quantities, units and scales
>>
>> Toby,
>> There's no question that UnitsML is central to this issue.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Considine,
>> Toby (Campus Services IT)
>> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 12:40 PM
>> To: 'Ontology Summit 2009'
>> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] URIs for quantities, units and scales
>>
>> Don't go too far down this road w/o looking into UnitsML.
>>
>> JGI
>>
>>
>> "A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which
>> is but saying ... that he is wiser today than yesterday." -- Jonathan Swift
>>
>> Toby Considine
>> Chair, OASIS oBIX TC
>> Facilities Technology Office
>> University of North Carolina
>> Chapel Hill, NC
>>
>> Email: Toby.Considine@ unc.edu
>> Phone: (919)962-9073
>> http://www.oasis-open.org
>> blog: www.NewDaedalus.com
>>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew West
>> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 12:25 PM
>> To: 'Ontology Summit 2009'
>> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] URIs for quantities, units and scales
>>
>> Dear John,
>>
>>
>>> URIs aren't magic. People have relied on paper to transmit
>>> and agree on meaning for many, many centuries. Putting a pail
>>> of garbage at the end of a URI rainbow won't make it gold.
>>>
>>> DL> I suggest that creating a self-consistent ontology will take
>>> > time, but assigning URIs to quantities, units and scales will
>>> > bring an immediate benefit. The URIs can be used without an
>>> > ontology within existing data models.
>>>
>>> If you don't do your homework in defining the meaning of any
>>> symbols at the end of that URI rainbow, it'll just be garbage.
>>> The GIGO principle for computer systems has not been repealed
>>> by the Semantic Web.
>>>
>> [MW] The homework has been done on units and measures. Engineers and
>> physicists are quite clear about what they mean for their purposes whether
>> or not they have defined that meaning in a formal ontology, so for their
>> purposes common identifiers and looking them up in a standard when necessary
>> works.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Matthew West
>> Information Junction
>> Tel: +44 560 302 3685
>> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
>> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
|