Re: [ontolog-forum] Constructs, primitives, terms

[William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 11:37 PM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 3/17/2012 2:08 PM, William Frank wrote:
> ... that you would think and evenassume that I would opine about UML

> in a public forum without knowing a fair bit about it.

I'm sorry.  I didn't intend to imply anything of the sort.  When I
respond to a note in a public forum, I normally include enough
background to make the note intelligible for the entire readership.

Thanks.  Good advice. 
 

> But, the arrogance of the fathers of UML, in not checking in with the

> 2500 years of logic...

Unfortunately, many groups take a very provincial view and try to
make everybody else conform to their constraints.  That's my biggest
complaint about the Semantic Web.

And mine about too some of its advocates, who don't see it as old wine in new bottles.   I think Model Driven Architecture and Ontology Development Gasevic, Djuric, and Devedzic, makes it pretty clear that it is. 

Only, the OMG did its own thing to hold up progress, too: They finally *did* produce mathematical models, but two *separate* models, one for classes, and one for objects, so with two separate models, we have 1. classes treated as the individuals in the universe of discourse of the class model, and properties  that apply to these classes, and 2. entirely separately, objects as individuals in the object model, and properties that apply to objects, instead of the classes *being* the properties that apply to the objects, as they are in logic, and so 3. the necessity of figuring out how to *map* between these two separate models, instead of using the very same structures recursively to create a higher order logic syntax and semantics of the whole thing, fitted together at every level.  This took some fancy footwork on their part, and still does, in that every time another "level of metamodel", is needed, instead of this being just another order of syntactic predicates and correspondiing semantic properties, it seems an enormous has to be undertaken. 

> But just think, if we could have a single conceptual modelling technique

> that was used both by web developers and others...

I agree.  But I would say "family of interoperable techniques" since I
don't believe there can be a one-size-fits-all technique.

Yes, "family" is the way to say it.   And, that would be my goal to help create and promulgate.

Tx

Wm

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

-- 
William Frank

413/376-8167


This email is confidential and proprietary, intended for its addressees only.
It may not be distributed to non-addressees, nor its contents divulged,
without the permission of the sender.
_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)