On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Ed Barkmeyer <edbark@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John,
>
> One minor point, but a major issue to me and the OMG folk.
>
> I wrote:
>>> This is the approach of the ISO/OASIS Product LifeCycle Services (PLCS)
>>> standards gang. They allow for successive levels of standardization,
>>> each of which defines common practices for a smaller industry group and
>>> allows for trading partner specializations and adaptations. Their
>>> models, however, are currently written in a combination of EXPRESS (with
>>> an OWL derivative) and XML Schema, so that they actually get implemented
>>> in commercial software.
>>>
>
> John wrote:
>
>> Another argument for focusing on semantics and providing translations
>> to and from every notation on the planet.
>>
>
> The issue is that the relationship between an ontology and a Java model
> or an XML exchange form is not "translation" in any usual sense. It is
> a software engineering process that produces an information systems
> artifact -- an information technology model. The purpose of the IT
> model is to carry the part of the semantics of the elements of the
> ontology that is relevant to a particular software system
> implementation. From an engineering point of view, the relationship
> between the ontology and the implementation model is "trace", analogous
> to that between a design element and its intended function.
>
> [I'm sure John did not mean to imply that an ontology would be like an
> IDEF-1X information model -- having a one-to-one translation to SQL.
> But many people in this industry think in those terms: that an ontology
> can be "translated" -- transformed by a rote process -- to an
> implementation model for 20th century software. I would describe that
> as wrong thinking. It may be possible for some uses, but it should not
> be the intent of the ontology. Put another way, that view treats
> 'ontology' as a synonym for 'information model' or 'object model'.] (01)
If it is possible, could you clarify what uses that it might be possible to
use an ontology as an information model or an object model ? (02)
Thanks,
JK (03)
> OTOH, an ontology may usefully be "translated" to a different knowledge
> engineering language, for use by multiple reasoning tools, without
> significant loss of semantics. That is the distinction I want to make.
>
> So, while we are discussing the clarification of vocabulary, can we be
> more careful about ours?
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> National Institute of Standards & Technology
> Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Cel: +1 240-672-5800
>
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
> and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|