Dear John, (01)
In my terms your claim amounts to saying that in software, for "any and every"
useful application, there is a schema, explicitly stated or not, that describes
data layout and a semantics upon that schema, i.e., rules for the
transformation of this schema from one form to another. (02)
I've looked at a good deal of source code in my career - including SAP R3/R4,
Oracle, operating systems, compilers, interpreters and numerous application
programs of one form or another. I have no evidence to support your claim and
an intuition that says "well, maybe, but …" (03)
My suspicion is that any schema produced will contain both redundancies and
inconsistencies that are, at best, difficult to resolve. You will also reveal
that the semantics are ambiguous. I suspect that if you interviewed the
engineers involved they would leave the room embarrassed and in dispute -
whatever is in their minds will not be consistent, to their surprise - since
they surely read the manual. (04)
You have been involved in analysis that can hold me in error; I'll be happy to
stand corrected. (05)
Best regards,
Steven (06)
On Feb 18, 2013, at 11:08 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (07)
>> To John an "ontology" is what somebody had in his head when
>> he wrote the legacy software.
>
> No. I said that the software for any and every useful application is
> based on some ontology about the application domain. (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|