John, (01)
The comments I quickly made was related to the lack of rigor and
critical reviews in general. The patented CCTS uses both a signifier
(dictionary entry name) and a definition is specified. The short
definition observation I offered was regarding the definition practices.
In many cases the content of the definitions seems redundant. I tried to
leave the most interesting discussion re definition vs axions for later. (02)
A designation expression for a binary relation concept follows a grammar
("ClassTerm"+". "+"roleTerm"+". " + "relatedConceptTerm") and the
prevalent practice of a specifying oneline definitions follows simple
english patterns. Just taking the words in a designation and rearranging
them seems as a *weak* practice that adds little additional explanatory
effect (in addition to the already available designation). (03)
Designation: "Accounting Entry. Value Date. Date Time"
Definition: "The date, time, date time, or other date time value of the
value date of this accounting entry." (04)
I made a small application some time ago that traversed the definitions
and tried to calculate how much text of the definitions were based on
words patterns based on designation words. Over 60% of the definition
text seemed to following word patterns. (05)
Unfortunately the CCTS does not ,in practice, offer many alternative
mechanisms for representing axioms.In additions to concepts,
hierarchically oriented binary relations ('basic property' and
'association property') and a 'based on' sub-component derivation
mechanism there are few other options to use for axiom specifications.
The so called "Usage rules" are not used at all, except for "data types" (06)
> Nothing in any proposed ontology has overruled the old GIGO
> principle: Garbage In -- Garbage Out. And if you have a
> long-term database or knowledge base, it stays there forever. (07)
So true, An interesting comparison would be to try to assess whether
newly developed CCTS libraries and its new XML syntax solution provides
a significantly "better" foundation for interoperability than EDIFACT. I
just talked to a major global industry organisation and they said that
EDIFACT solutions are still in very high demand. (08)
/anders (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|