The intended user set of both SBVR and the Date-Time Vocabulary is business
analysts and maybe some business people, not philosophers or physicists.
Programmers may get involved in implementing rules that employ this stuff. (01)
The Date-Time Vocabulary IS complex --- because there is a tremendous amount
of complexity inherent in temporal concepts, and particularly in the
Gregorian calendar. We attempted to soften this complexity by an extensive
Rationale discussion (clause 7), by providing lots of examples, and by
providing UML diagrams for the entire vocabulary. We defined key concepts
in CL and IKL to provide a strong semantic foundation. (02)
The DTV specification intermixes the business-oriented concepts with
supporting concepts, constraints, and axioms. To make this more
business-friendly, we are currently preparing an informative annex that will
identify the concepts that we expect business people to use. (03)
Mark H. Linehan
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 2:09 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Requesting Opinions on the Benefits of
Predicates as Nodes (04)
The vocabulary is at:
http://www.omg.org/spec/DTV1.0/PDF (05)
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. (06)
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. (07)
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. (08)
It might be useful to philosophers and an occasional physicist to employ,
but it certainly isn't going to get widespread use by programmers. (09)
-Rich (010)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (011)
-----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 (012)
Mark and Dick, (013)
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. (014)
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. (015)
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. (016)
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. (017)
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. (018)
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. (019)
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 (020)
http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/egintro.pdf (021)
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. (022)
I agree. Note slide 4 of egintro.pdf, which shows Peirce's version. (023)
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. (024)
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). (025)
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 (026)
John (027)
__________________________________________________
_______________
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 (028)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (029)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (030)
|