I don't understand. The Gregorian Calendar has
already been implemented in programming languages.
I can ask for the Date, the Time, the Date-Time,
and so on. What is already present in the
standard TDateTime repertoire of functions already
allows those features. (01)
It would seem the reason behind a logical
formulation would have to do with making
inferences, rather than with providing the
Gregorian Calendar functionality in declarative
terms, as the SBVR seems to do. (02)
Why solve problems that have already been solved
another way for the calculated dates, times and
durations? The only reason that occurs to me is
based on inference or other logic. (03)
Thanks for explaining that,
-Rich (04)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (05)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mark H Linehan
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 7:44 AM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Requesting Opinions
on the Benefits of Predicates as Nodes (06)
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. (07)
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. (08)
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. (09)
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 (010)
The vocabulary is at:
http://www.omg.org/spec/DTV1.0/PDF (011)
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. (012)
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. (013)
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. (014)
It might be useful to philosophers and an
occasional physicist to employ,
but it certainly isn't going to get widespread use
by programmers. (015)
-Rich (016)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (017)
-----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 (018)
Mark and Dick, (019)
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. (020)
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. (021)
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. (022)
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. (023)
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. (024)
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. (025)
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 (026)
http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/egintro.pdf (027)
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. (028)
I agree. Note slide 4 of egintro.pdf, which shows
Peirce's version. (029)
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. (030)
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). (031)
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 (032)
John (033)
__________________________________________________
_______________
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 (034)
__________________________________________________
_______________
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 (035)
__________________________________________________
_______________
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 (036)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (037)
|