John,
See in line below.
Sjir Nijssen
Chief Technical Officer
PNA Group
Tel: +31 (0)88-777 0 444
Mob: +31 (0)6-21 510 844
Fax: +31 (0)88-777 0 499
E-mail: sjir.nijssen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pna-group.com
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens John F Sowa
Verzonden: zaterdag 12 januari 2013 19:15
Aan: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] [External] Re: What is Data? What is a Datum? 2013-01-09-0930
Sjir,
The issue about multiple definitions, even contradictory definitions, is not just a matter of time.
[[Sjir: John, you are right. In the following example we have the following: what is permitted in Polyland, is not permitted in Ireland, nor Holland, what is permitted in Holland is not permitted in Polyland, nor Ireland and what is
permitted in Ireland is permitted in Polyland and in Holland. In the OMG SIMF response group we are now working on this case with three jurisdictions, each having a different kind of marriage. We have Polyland (also called Multiland or Manyland), where a
marriage consists of at least one male spouse and at least one female spouse. We also include Ireland where a marriage has exactly two spouses, with different gender. And we have Holland, where we have marriages with exactly two spouses. It is assumed that
these three jurisdictions have developed independently their own Conceptual Domain Model or in a prior software technology dependent representation and one of the goals of SIMF is to make federation of such information from independently developed systems
a new option.]] Even at the same time for the same system, different parts or subsystems may use different approximations.
> I agree with you that definitions have a lifecycle and that every now
> and then you have to update the definition. A well known example is
> marriage in The Netherlands.
Another example is multiple definitions for different purposes.
[[Sjir: in SIMF we will cover this as different contexts.]]
A road on a map is shown as a one-dimensional line. When you're driving on it, you treat it as a two-dimensional surface But the people who build it or fix the potholes must treat it as 3-D.
> ... my experience is that it is possible for the ISO TR9007 concept
> Conceptual Schema when one consistently starts with observable forms
> of communication and then work up through the conceptual domain model
> (including extensive testing) and from there to the conceptual generic
> model (including extensive testing).
How would that apply to a road? We'd like to have one name for it, such as highway I-80. But for different purposes, we need to consider it 1-D, 2-D, or 3-D.
[[Sjir: we came across this situation not so long ago in this country. In that case different views were used to see the 1-D, 2-D or 3-D.]]
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