|From:||William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:23:30 -0500|
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Cory Casanave <cory-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
True, and there is nothing wrong with doing so, if you are using a technology solution space that assumes this, or bunch of people who have been trained in this. And, it is true that adding **an** intutive semantics to informaiton modelling is key, and is Chen's contribution. What is NOT true is that this semantics is very intuitive, and everbody gets it right away.
Of course not, what I am suggesting is not that, but that as the background for a role-based sematics, with agents and affected parties and tools and the like (find a list of theta roles on the web.) Having dealt with lots of business people, I have found they easily learn and like BETTER just listing every concept they use, and then tieing them together with concept maps, rather than trying to figure out what is an entity, what an attribute, and what is a relation.
Well, this is the argument of many always, Neutonian mechanics was mainstream. So was behavioral psychology. What I believe is that the important TOOL is UML drawings, and state transition models, not the semantics of UML, which I bet fewer than 1000 know, among the 100s of thousands who use the drawings.
Nope, it is one thought. Thought number 1. Then, the ENTIRE MODEL, or at least each separate proposition, has to have a denontic, speech act, or temporal operator applied to it. If this is a conceptual model for a domain, then that operator is a relative prescriptive one: "this is the way to use these concepts in minerology these days."
Well, that is just awful, and that is the point. This is another mistake of Indo-European-only speakers, they DISTRIBUTE the propositioinal operations in front of the verb, instead of in front of the whole proposition. The operator PAST does not apply to the verb has, it applies to the proposition, "john tall" So, that the logical way to express this is PAST(john tall). WANT (john tall) WILL BE (john tall). COMMAND (john tall), QUESTION (john tall). If this seems weird to you, it is because you don't know Chinese, for example, and because you have not studied speech acts and verbs of propositional attitude. So, because just about everybody who creates onto languages does this clearly wrong, just makes me sad, that they do not think there is a century of accumulated knowledge they could build on, it does not make me want to join them.
In other words, the world on knowledge is alot bigger than information engineering, and other engineering disciplines don't **make up** their own science, they USE science. We don't. Shame on us, especially if we then argue we CAN'T use science because most people trained by us don't know the science, and already use something made up instead!
Ah, this is missing the point, that the 'relations' such as 'has as an attribute', 'is a subtype of' , is a member of' 'plays the role of' etc. DO NOT have domain specific meaing. They are purlely logical. Everything else is expressed as a thingie. Now, an association is a domain specific thing, like a boss. As in sally is george's boss.
There is a giving event. George plays the role of agent in this event, the book is the given, and sally is the given to.
See, giving is not necessarily a relation, it can also be a thingie, and a subject or an object of a sentence. Giving is good. I love to give.
_________________________________________________________________ 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:|
|Next by Date:|
|Previous by Thread:|
|Next by Thread:|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|