The vocabulary is at:
http://www.omg.org/spec/DTV1.0/PDF (01)
I am amazed at the complexity of this vocabulary.
As a programmer, I have used the TDateTime domain
many times, and I was pleasantly surprised to find
a Berkeley doctoral thesis on Temporal Logic,
which explained and defined the Temporal Logic
Modal Truth Criterion, which came out in the early
to mid 80's. (02)
Soon after, David Chapman wrote a master's thesis
at MIT on how to solve the planning problem. That
was a great thesis also, and very useful. (03)
Neither of those documents had anything like the
complexity of this vocabulary. It seems to me
that this SBVR vocabulary is so ornate as to be an
obstacle to programmers instead of an aid. (04)
It might be useful to philosophers and an
occasional physicist to employ, but it certainly
isn't going to get widespread use by programmers. (05)
-Rich (06)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (07)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 10:22 AM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Requesting Opinions
on the Benefits of Predicates as Nodes (08)
Mark and Dick, (09)
MHL
> I WISH that the SBVR designers had chosen to
define it in terms
> of a system with a sound semantic basis, such
as CL/IKL. (010)
The failure to start with a sound semantic basis
has plagued computer
systems for years. I blame both the programmers
and the logicians.
Their excuses are stated in many different ways,
but the reason is
always the same: they don't understand each
other's point of view. (011)
MHL
> Ed and I and the Date-Time Vocabulary (DTV) team
chose to define
> key aspects of DTV in CL + IKL, and in UML +
OCL, partly to ensure
> a firm semantic foundation for our work. (012)
That's good. But there have been many good
examples like that over
the years, and the next group of designers never
learn the lesson. (013)
Ted Codd started with logic as a foundation for
RDBs. The SQL
WHERE-clause can be used to represent FOL, but in
a way that I used
to call the worst notation for logic ever
invented. Datalog is an
excellent query and constraint language for any DB
(relational or
graph based). But there are many turf battles
over doing anything
to simplify and standardize DBs. (014)
For the Semantic Web, Tim B-L proposed a
foundation called SWeLL
(Semantic Web Logic Language) in 2000. Pat Hayes
and Guha developed
a logic called SWEL for specifying RDF -- with a
semantics that was
almost identical to CL. But the OWL gang wanted
their own model
theory, and most of the voters in the W3C were
clueless about any
issue that was related to logic. (015)
Fundamental problem: Most programmers don't
understand how simple logic
really is, and most logicians don't know how to
explain logic to anyone
who doesn't already speak their language. For a
simpler intro, see (016)
http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/egintro.pdf (017)
MHL
> What I meant is that the "that" operator (in
whatever semantic system /
> language) is necessary for adequately capturing
important aspects of real
> business rules and vocabularies. (018)
I agree. Note slide 4 of egintro.pdf, which shows
Peirce's version. (019)
RHM
> John Sowa's earlier remarks about IKL and "that"
identified the
> fundamental issue underlying this entire thread.
The details relating
> to graphs and triples are not important. What's
important is the
> treatment of propositions and sentences (using
John's terms). I will
> simply use the term proposition. (020)
I'm glad that we can agree on something. But the
same proposition
can be expressed by different sentences. Note
slides 8 to 11 of
egintro.pdf. When you're trying to relate
multiple notations, it's
essential to distinguish the readable mark
(sentence) from the
meaning of the mark (proposition). (021)
In the following note, I define a proposition as
an equivalence class
of sentences that can be mapped from one to the
other by a meaning-
preserving translation (MPT):
http://www.jfsowa.com/logic/proposit.htm (022)
John (023)
__________________________________________________
_______________
Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J (024)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (025)
|