On Jul 27, 2013, at 4:49 PM, Hans Polzer wrote: (01)
> Until you start including a description of the context(s) within which the
>representation of entities applies, you won't get very far. Every legacy
>system has an assumed context and scope for what it does, and a specific
>perspective on that context, and specific frames of reference used to describe
>the relevant "world" from its perspective. That's why we have a "tangled
>mess".
>
> By the way, all systems are legacy systems - including the one you are
>designing this moment (from the perspective of the designer of the next
>system) - and no one will ever get the resources to redesign and reimplement
>all systems that do everything for everyone's purposes: live with it! Nothing
>operationally useful gets built without constrained scope, time, and
>resources, which limits the n-space of context ranges it can practically
>address.
>
> All attempts to define entities and relations in a context free/neutral
>manner as a solution to interoperability are doomed to have limited validity
>(i.e., to those systems/applications that share their implicit context/scope
>assumptions). Only when we start being explicit about our context and scope
>assumptions within which we are describing entities and relationships will we
>be able to semi-reliably share meaning between arbitrary systems. So the first
>order of business should be an ontology for describing context and scope
>assumptions. (02)
And the trouble with *that* idea is, there are as many distinct notions of
"context" as there are people saying that we need to describe contexts. (03)
Pat (04)
>
> Hans
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kingsley Idehen
> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:35 PM
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Amazon vs. IBM: Big Blue meets match in battle
>for the cloud
>
> On 7/27/13 10:06 AM, deddy wrote:
>> Michael -
>>
>>> your example becomes more and more specific and challenging :-) Yes,
>>> if all you have is the code, you are in trouble and SW technologies
>>> are not a magic bullet for solving it.
>>>
>> Welcome to the world of legacy systems.
>
> By "legacy systems" you mean a subjective tangled mess rife with contextual
>fluidity?
>
>>
>> I hope against hope that somewhere in the SW stack of tools there just
>> might be something to help with understanding legacy systems.
>
> Yes, they help since "meaning" is critical to "understanding" anything.
> Thus, you can map out a tangled mess, rife with contextual fluidity, by
>decomposing the aforementioned mess into:
>
> 1. entities
> 2. entity relationships
> 3. entity relationship roles
> 4. entity relations .
>
> You can achieve the above with computer and human oriented languages.
>>
>> It's a very SMALL hope.
>
> I have big hopes, the challenge lies in getting everyone to look at the task
>like they would a jigsaw puzzle game where every resource is a puzzle-piece,
>as exemplified by the World Wide Web.
>
>>
>> What I do see is SW creating yet another tangled layer of undocumented,
>poorly understood systems.
>
> Of course not.
>
>>
>>
>> I've been attending monthly MIT SW meetings for 4+ years. Once, by chance,
>I did catch TBL himself saying to the
>> audience that "Semantic Web" was a clever marketing label, but that in
>reality, "linked data" would be a more
>> appropriate description since there really isn't anything special about
>semantics in the SW.
>
> Hmm..
>
> I think TimBL was trying to unravel the obvious fact that the Web he
> envisioned was a read-write global graph comprised of:
>
> 1. entities -- things
> 2. entity relationships -- statements describing things
> 3. entity roles -- relationship roles e.g., subject, predicate, and object
> 4. entity relations -- sets of relationships scoped to common predicates
> 5. relation semantics -- exploitation of First-order logic as the
> foundation for relation semantics.
>
> In the context of the World Wide Web, HTTP URIs would serve as the
> denotation (naming) mechanism for the items above.
>
> The World Wide Web was always about a global entity relationship graph
> [1] where humans and machines would be able to comprehend entity
> relationship semantics [2]. Basically, the fidelity or entity
> relationship semantics of this global entity relationship graph would
> evolve (continuously) over time via crowd-sourcing.
>
>
>>
>>
>> As you may have noticed, my passion is for a process—tool assisted, but
>requiring human knowledge at the beginnings
>> —to extract & make formal the MENSA_FL --> MEssage Notify Stop Action Flag
>--> "a collection of dunning flags"
>> process.
>
> We (certainly I) just need to find the right way to articulate that we
> (You and I) are on the same page. At the top of this response, what I
> outlined are steps that fall into your "beginnings" view point i.e.,
> that domain experts and systems analysts MUST be key participants in the
> process. That's totally different from the typical pattern where
> programmers (short on domain expertise and industry experience)
> generally make things up as they experiment and play with the latest and
> greatest programming language, where the real focus is parsing
> capabilities, language idioms, and data representation formats etc..
>
> To conclude, we just need to align our own entity relationship semantics
> as we discuss these matters, en route to common understanding :-)
>
> Links:
>
> [1] http://bit.ly/10Y9FL1 -- Proof that Relationship Semantics & Linked
> Data were part of original World Wide Web design and proposal
> [2] http://bit.ly/16EVFVG -- Illustrating the loose-coupling of
> Identifiers (e.g., URIs), Structured Data, and Logic exemplified by Web
> Architecture
> [3] http://slidesha.re/18CtxGK -- Blogic Presentation by Pat Hayes.
>
>
> Kingsley
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Does "dunning" have a German meaning? It means the process to send someone
>a series of (increasingly firm) bills to
>> collect a debt. R.G. Dun was an early (1840s) credit rating business here
>in the States & eventually merged to become
>> Dun & Bradstreet, which survives to this day.
>>
>> ______________________
>> David Eddy
>> Babson Park, MA
>> 781-455-0949
>>
>>
>>> -------Original Message-------
>>> From: Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> To: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Amazon vs. IBM: Big Blue meets match in
>battle for the cloud
>>> Sent: 2013-07-27 08:50
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello David,
>>>
>>> your example becomes more and more specific and challenging :-) Yes, if all
>>> you have is the code, you are in trouble and SW technologies are not a
>magic
>>> bullet for solving it.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Michael Brunnbauer
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:44:17AM -0400, David Eddy wrote:
>>>> Michael -
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 26, 2013, at 9:13 AM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> distributed in the heads of two experts for one or the other system.
>>>>
>>>> Let us assume the experts are not readily available...
>>>>
>>>> - I'm too green to formulate a coherent question
>>>>
>>>> - experts do not like to be pestered by clueless newbie questions
>>>>
>>>> - experts are simply too busy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The "knowledge" that has trickled down to me is as most technical
>documentation severely stripped of useful
>>>> context & content.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> once you have discovered that M0760 and MENSA-FL are the same
>>>>
>>>> That's the hard part... how are M0760 & MENSA-FL discovered to be the same?
>>>>
>>>> Remember, we're looking at a data structure with 1700 data elements &
>analysts/programmers are pawing over
>> this stuff on a regular basis.
>>>>
>>>> In theory there should be documentation... but situations like this
>typically come down to: "the code is the
>> documentation."
>>>>
>>>> - David
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ++ Michael Brunnbauer
>>> ++ netEstate GmbH
>>> ++ Geisenhausener Straße 11a
>>> ++ 81379 München
>>> ++ Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
>>> ++ Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89
>>> ++ E-Mail brunni@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> ++ http://www.netestate.de/
>>> ++
>>> ++ Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
>>> ++ USt-IdNr. DE221033342
>>> ++ Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
>>> ++ Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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 (05)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|