|To:||jmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|From:||William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Tue, 28 May 2013 20:10:10 -0400|
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:06 PM, John McClure <jmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
more comments below
I do care about the quality of the ontology mathematically, which is exactly why I initiated this discussion.
Sure, but mathematical simplicity is not the **goal** if the ontology is to be used by normal freindly people. It has to be closer to the way they think, even if you want to be mathematically grounded and of course consistent.
For those who will use the ontology to enable them to precisely, concisely, universally, implementation and solution architecture indenpendently (so that they could be built in Lisp, Cassandra, Prolog, my SQL, ....), specify the behaviors of software, and then to build the most elegant, simple, concise, reusable, and interoperable software, that exhibits those behaviors.
Not a bit. In fact, I have a colleague who is using a very simple tool to collect and verify and organize business assertions in exactly the form David Hay advocates, and then translates them with automated assistence into a single thingie model, with the glue provided by pre-defined, non-business domain specific logical relations. This is not some weird thing I am advocating, but rather, an application of common logic. (in my case, a very sloppy one, that suits my needs so far. ) How could anybody in the business not know about Peter Chen? Me, my favorite is David Hay.
You are right, a subject, predicate, object triple construct requires 5 business domain-specific nouns, a noun that names a binary relation, two nouns that name the roles that the relation PLUS the logical glue that would tie them together. You may think this sounds less concise, but it imposes so much more structure on the model that it becomes more concise and clear. You eliminate so much redundancy. No more mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers. They are all introduced by definition of more primitive concepts.
That is in **your** analysis model, it is. (That is, in traditional E/R modelling, and in traditional UML class modelling, it is.) This is the essence of what I am showing. It does not NEED to be. You do not NEED any business domain specific predicates. This puzzles me, that you would say this as if it might be news to me, and I needed the most basic lesson. This would not be news to anyone who has been doing this for more than a few months, let alone more than a few decades.
it is NOT a concept which, to me, is the root of the problem here.
This puzzles me more. Is not love a concept? Exactly as much as mother is? Do you believe that because English and other indo eurpean languages use predicates, or verbs, or action words, separately from thing words, this is somehow essential to human thought? It is not. Actions and people both have temporal durations. Some actions take longer to happen than people take to happen. The both satisfy the temporal-spacial criteria many have been talking about later. Indeed, there are languages where one would say something like: being john there is being tall. Only actions in places.
So, consider the way a child learns about dogs, toungues, and licking. Are the very same kinds of experiences required to experience a phemominon, and attach the label 'dog' to it, as ar required to see some licking, and call it such?
Absolutely, and exactly as much Sally's relationship to John, in the same instance. Sally plays one named role, john the other. The need for two SEPARATE 'predicatres' is an artifact of the inefficiency of using position placement to implicitly indicate roles. When you state the roles explicity, position is irrelevant, becuase made explicit.
It has a separate english sentence, but not a separate real relationship. There is only one actual fact here, not two.
Yes the are, and MUST be.
I am sorry, but is almost impossible to use typing and subtyping thisthis way effectively. I know the tutorials on OWL do this. Set modelling back before Chen. Type hierarchies should be trees.
For example, chardonnay is NOT a type of wine, contrary to the OWL tutorial. Chardonnay is a type of grape, and a wine may be classified according the grapes used to make it, as well as in myrid other ways. These are not different 'types" of wine, using the bilogical analogy for taxonomies. Wine would have only ONE subtype hierachy, based on what is essential about wine being wine. (How it is made).
Well, there is a problem with this. Most things that happen involve multple things. Like Catalyis. Which 'resource' are you going to attach that chemical reaction to? Like a boxing match. And, while we are at it, if it so unatural to talk about roles and gerunds and not use domain specific verbs, why is it ok to subject the freindly world to 'resources'.
These are not two different facts, even though they are two different english sentences, required becuse of positionality. One reason S.W.I.F.T. won, and bankwire lost, is because SWIFT is not positional ,every role is a tag on the noun. So, order is unimportant. another example, with a predicate gaul object conquer ceasar subject means you don't have to have a separate work for conquered by.
See, you are using mutliple words because they exist in English. Why human female young instead are primitives, and girl is only a defined term.
I agree. I like provenance here.
_________________________________________________________________ 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)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] is-part-of: a really, really, bad practice?, jmcclure|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Data & Relations, Kingsley Idehen|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] is-part-of: a really, really, bad practice?, John McClure|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] is-part-of: a really, really, bad practice?, doug foxvog|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|