Hi Chris, (01)
The work Dave and I did was for the Shell Downstream Model (an industry
extension to ISO15926). The application first converted the EXPRESS model to
OWL (Dave's expertise). It then constructed the documentation stubs by
examining all the immediate supertypes. So, if A is a subtype of X and Y,
the documentation would read "An X and a Y that...." - obviously, the rest
would then need to be filled in by hand. If documentation was already
present, it checked to see if the format was correct. (02)
We also converted the OWL to HTML and Javascript to provide an online
navigable class hierarchy. (03)
Cheers
--
Ian (04)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Partridge
Sent: 02 March 2010 18:47
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping (05)
John, (06)
One very small point. (07)
> I would call the "stilted" English of ISO 19526 a "controlled NL", which I
have
> been recommending for years. The version in ISO 19526 was written by
humans,
> but I would urge them to test it by automated means to verify the mapping
to
> logic. If any errors are detected, the controlled NL could be revised by
semi-
> automated means. (08)
I believe something similar was done (Matthew will know better). As I recall
Ian Bailey (or maybe it was David Price) wrote a program to generate the
automatable text (it is not all automatable) for ISO 15926. Ian and I
discussed something similar for IDEAS, he will remember whether it was
implemented.
Of course, from an audit point of view, it would be useful to check the
automatically generated text. (09)
Chris (010)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: 02 March 2010 13:59
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping
>
> Dear Matthew, Chris, Pat, Pat, and Gary,
>
> I believe that Mathew, Chris P., and Gary have made some points that can
clarify
> and resolve the arguments between Pat and Pat.
> I'd like to emphasize some points and add a few more.
>
> MW> I suspect the real problem here is that you [Pat and Pat] are
> > each looking through opposite ends of the telescope. Let me >
describe the
> different views:
> >
> > PatH looks at it from the theory end, and says that when you change >
an
> axiom in a theory there is a different set of models that it > picks out.
> Absolutely right. It "means" something different.
> >
> > PatC looks at it from the other end. He has a particular intended >
> interpretation, and his question is: if he changes this axiom does > it
still pick
> out his intended interpretation (he doesn't care > about any unintended
> interpretations). If it does, as far as he > is concerned it "means" the
same
> thing. Also true.
>
> Yes. And Chris emphasizes a point that is often lost in the debates about
logic:
>
> CP> ... without an intended interpretation, the ontology is of
> > no practical use.
> >
> > This seems to me to imply that when we are thinking about the >
process of
> developing an ontology, it is useful to have some way > of talking about
and
> sharing this intended interpretation.
>
> PC> But recognizing that the goal of the FO is to support the
> > purposes of the programmers and ontologists who use it in >
applications, it
> is the *intended meanings* of the ontology > elements that are of primary
> importance, because they determine > what goes into the ontology.
>
> Yes, but the path from intention to implementation is never
straightforward.
>
> PC> The users are not at the mercy of any unintended inference
> > that, willy-nilly, may pop up when a change is made to the > ontology.
>
> The users really *are* at the mercy of unintended implications:
>
> 1. There is no such thing as a vague program. Every computer
> program does something that can be very precisely specified.
>
> 2. But what it does so precisely may have no similarity to
> what the programmer, system analyst, or user had intended.
>
> 3. Customers don't know what they want until they see what they get.
> In other words, "Be careful what you ask for."
>
> These points imply that the process of mapping intentions to any kind of
> formalism (programs or axioms) must be an iterative process that compares
the
> intentions to the implications at each stage.
>
> PC>> The disconnect between PatH's view of "meaning" and mine is that
> >> he is content to believe that the meanings of the elements used >> in
> programs, databases, ontologies (e.g. time, distance, physical >> object,
dollar,
> person) all change every time we add a new >> assertion about unicorns,
and I
> am not.
>
> PH> It is not a matter of being content to believe. I am asserting
> > this AS A FACT, and you are simply in denial about elementary facts >
of
> semantic theory.
>
> This exchange revolves around two vague words: 'change' and 'meaning'.
> I suggest that we restate the issues in terms of concrete examples, such
as
> Gary's:
>
> GBC> Since Euclidean geometry, an axiomatized system, was mentioned
> > it reminded me of Euclid's first 4 postulates (axioms) which involve >
> primitives like point. When a 5th axioms is added it didn't seem > like
the
> primitives changed and that any conclusion just using the > first 4
axioms would
> be the same. If the 5ht axioms is involved > then new conclusions are
reached.
> On the face of it this seems to > be the an intuition that supports (in
part) what
> Pat C was saying.
>
> The example of Euclidean geometry and the different varieties of
non-Euclidean
> geometry illustrates the issues very well.
>
> If you consider Euclid's first four postulates by themselves, you get a
primitive,
> underspecified version of geometry, which is neutral with respect to
issues
> about parallel lines. One might reasonably claim that this simple
geometry is
> sufficient to capture the basic meaning of the word 'point" and its
relationships
> to other words, such as 'line'.
>
> But the 5th axiom about parallel lines is critical to the meaning of the
word 'line',
> which changes when different axioms are added to the underspecified,
4-axiom
> theory.
>
> This is one more reason why looking at the lattice of all possible
theories can
> help resolve these disputes: The theories in the infinite lattice never
change, but
> the finite collection of implemented theories may change when we add new
> theories to it.
>
> CP> It may turn out that a more important consideration is to
> > translate the formal structure into text to make it more readable >
for the
> users - ISO 19526 does this (though you may find the English > a bit
stilted). My
> gut instinct would be to formalise where possible > for explanatory
reasons - I
> think these are at least as important in > large ontologies as inference.
>
> I would call the "stilted" English of ISO 19526 a "controlled NL", which I
have
> been recommending for years. The version in ISO 19526 was written by
humans,
> but I would urge them to test it by automated means to verify the mapping
to
> logic. If any errors are detected, the controlled NL could be revised by
semi-
> automated means.
>
> Controlled natural languages are important intermediate notation that can
help
> narrow the inevitable gaps between the intended meaning and the
implemented
> formalism.
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|