[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] [ontology-summit] UN/CEFACT Core Components and Onto

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Anders W.Tell" <opensource@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:12:48 +0200
Message-id: <49E74AF0.2080403@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
> I fully agree with this, but there may be more problem in the practice 
> than in the concept.  One can attach rigorous definition to clear and 
> well thought out natural language taxonomies.  One problem with CCTS is 
> that the current libraries repeat the confusion in certain concepts that 
> was created by some bad taxonomic decisions in EDIFACT 20 years ago. 
Yes, the problems runs deeper. On part of the explanation why this has 
happened may be that there a strong element of tradition here and a 
sense that continuity is important. Using EDIFACT and TDED do work so 
why rock the boat too much.    (01)

Another explanation is IMO the patented CCTS itself. The structure and 
fundamental principles themselves in may cases prohibits use of 
traditional ontological techniques and principles.    (02)

> The further problem is the assumption that an entity is an amalgam of 
> all the attributes assigned to it by uncoordinated groups with different 
> viewpoints.  In most cases, the concept in the union of all the 
> viewpoints has a population on which none of viewers would agree, and 
> the intersection is empty.  The CCTS proposed solution is a mechanism 
> for defining a viewpoint ("context") as a surface in a discrete 
> 8-dimensional space, 
An intriguing engineering design, I haven't seen any example yet, from 
an industry organization, that provides conclusive evidence that is 
could work, on a large scale.    (03)

As a side note the Context group seems to be promoting a design that 
indicates that they think it exists a general context logic.    (04)

> in which four of the dimensions are themselves undefinable.  
I promised myself not to not engage in any more CCTS work after my VBMO 
papper on contexts but you got me here. Could you elaborate on which 
dimensions are undefinable and why?    (05)

>> 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.
> In UML2, the rigor is largely of a different kind, but yes.
An interesting feature in UML2 is the subsetting of properties that can 
accomplish quite a bit of what user communities want with respect to be 
able to structurally customize (or restrict) defined business documents. 
This UML2 feature is not well known but highly usable for e-Business 
document design.    (06)

> Some wag described CCTS as "a formal mechanism designed to support reuse 
> of data elements by careful disagreement on the concepts"
Such a joker :)    (07)

/anders    (08)

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    (09)

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