Dear John, Ed et al, (01)
John wrote:
the EFT ontology is the very
underspecified common theory on which
interoperability is possible. (02)
Why just 'very underspecified'? Wouldn't it be
'minimally underspecified'? There is no other
knowledge built into EFT other than how to
transfer money electronically, so bank account
numbers, routing numbers, and so forth are
specified in EFT. So adding anything at all to
EFT would be nonminimal. (03)
-Rich (04)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 6:48 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Generalization,
specialization, and interoperability (05)
David and Ed, (06)
The criteria I mentioned only work for two systems
A and B whose
ontologies have *both* been defined as
specializations of a common
generalization C. (07)
DW
> On the face of it, these [Acme and Enterprise]
are both compatible (08)
The criteria I stated do not include a condition
called "face of it".
Following is a copy from my previous note: (09)
JFS
> a) If two theories A and B are inconsistent in
their details,
> they can interoperate on shared data that is
specified by
> a common generalization C.
>
> b) To use data specified in C, neither A nor B
may assume any
> properties of that data not specified in C.
But they can use
> the details in conditionals that begin "If x
has property P ..." (010)
If the designers of Acme and Enterprise had both
adopted some common
standard C, then they could interoperate under
these conditions.
But if they hadn't, then there are two options: (011)
1. Give up. (012)
2. Analyze the spec's for Acme and Enterprise
to determine whether
there exists a common generalization for
some subset of the data. (013)
EJB
> For the ontology containing only these
predicates, we have no easy
> way to know what satisfying these axioms might
be. (014)
I agree. (015)
For practical examples, note that many standards
have evolved over
the years to support electronic funds transfer
(EFT). But those
standards specify almost nothing about the
accounts from which
and to which the funds are being transferred. (016)
Over the years, banks have merged with or
swallowed other banks many,
many times. They all have accounts with similar
sounding names:
checking, savings, etc. But the banks never, ever
merge accounts --
for reasons along the lines that David and Ed have
summarized.
Instead, they have two options: (017)
1. Give up -- i.e., continue to run the old
software from both banks
indefinitely. (018)
2. Shut down some or all the old accounts, open
similar sounding
accounts that are processed by different
software, and transfer
the funds from the old accounts to the new
accounts. (019)
To relate this example to my criteria above, the
EFT ontology is
the very underspecified common theory on which
interoperability
is possible. (020)
John (021)
__________________________________________________
_______________
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 (022)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (023)
|