Ed, (01)
Whenever I comment on anybody's notes, I quote their words verbatim.
If anybody complains that I did not include enough context, I apologize
and accept whatever new version they propose. (02)
> To John an "ontology" is what somebody had in his head when
> he wrote the legacy software. (03)
No. I said that the software for any and every useful application is
based on some ontology about the application domain. Then I summarized
four ways that the software is related to the ontology. Following is
a slightly clearer specification of those four ways: (04)
1. Informal & implicit: The ontology is informal and not stated in
any document. The fact that the implicit ontology is in the head
of the programmer who wrote the code can be determined by asking
him or her. (See Plato for the method of inquiry.) With suitable
software, the implicit ontology can often be discovered by
analyzing the programs and the kinds of data they process. (05)
2. Informal & explicit: The ontology is stated informally but
explicitly in some natural language text, such as manuals,
requirements documents, or comments in the code and the data
definitions. (06)
3. Formal & implicit: The ontology is formal, but the formal
statements have been lost, discarded, or otherwise disconnected
from the code and the data. (07)
4. Formal & explicit: The ontology is formal, and it is explicitly
linked to the code and the data. (08)
> Now, John may believe that there are 'ontologies' written in COBOL, (09)
I cited the legacy re-engineering project. Arun Majumdar and
Andre LeClerc used a version of the VivoMind software to analyze
the COBOL code and the SQL definitions to determine the structure
of the programs, the structure of the data, and what the programs
did with the data. (010)
Then the VivoMind software used that information to interpret the
English documentation about the programs, to compare what the
documentation said to what the programs did, and to detect any
discrepancies between the programs and the documentation. (011)
Finally, the VivoMind software generated a data dictionary,
a glossary for humans, and cross references from the glossary
to both the programs and the documentation. (012)
> but I do not find it productive to this community to agree. (013)
If you don't believe my claims, you can ask Ed Yourdon. For the
legacy re-engineering project, Accenture had said that it would
take 40 people two years to read the documentation and analyze
the code. The client called Yourdon as a consultant, and Ed Y.
recommended Arun and Andre. In 8 weeks time, they finished the
project and produced exactly what the client wanted. (I can
even point you to the client, if you want to verify that point.) (014)
> As David said, the legacy system will not have an 'ontology'
> with which any formal 'ontology' could reasonably 'interoperate'. (015)
As I explained to David, legacy systems have been interoperating
quite reasonably for over half a century. As I also explained,
it is not only possible, but very reasonable for systems based
on an explicit *normative* ontology to interoperate with either
legacy systems based on an implicit ontology or with systems
based on a different *normative* ontology. (016)
If you have any questions, please cut and paste passages from
my previous notes, and I'd be happy to clarify and elaborate. (017)
John (018)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (019)
|