On Dec 15, 2014, at 10:03 AM, Dennis <dennis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (01)
> All: A forum is supposed to be a place for open discussion. Pat Hayes began
>this tread itching for a fight. (02)
I was not looking for a fight. If telling the truth about incompetently written
standards is ruled inappropriate behavior, then I am happy to be banned from
the forum. I have other things to do. (03)
> A forum is not a fracas and this group should not tolerate such behavior.
>
> David: Thank you for being so gentlemanly in explaining FIBO behind the
>scenes and for extending the fact that FIBO is being built totally in the
>open.
>
> Mathew: Thank you for getting it right out of the box concerning why FIBO is
>where it is right now.
>
> William: after your initial punches, you certainly said the right thing with
>your words "...necessary and valuable efforts like FIBO".
>
> Pat: If you indeed have the one right way for building and executing real
>world ontologies, the FIBO community is very interested in seeing this. (04)
Of course I don't, and have never suggested that I (or anyone) has this. All I
have said is, words like "set", "property", "class" and so on have clear,
fairly sharply defined, meanings, and can be used coherently, or not. And the
FIBO documentation I have seen reads as though it was written by someone who
has no idea what these words mean. (05)
> In the meantime there is nothing to be served by attacking the great work of
>others. I have watched these "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin"
>arguments lead to nothing useful many times. FIBO is being engineered, tested
>and put to use today. (06)
Fine. I am sure that it would create a lot less confusion if its documentation
were written coherently, however. (07)
Pat (08)
>
> John: Thanks for putting FIBO on the table. It is a shame that Pat and then
>William chose to initiate a food fight, rather than take a seat at the table.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 8:50 PM, <ontolog-forum-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
> Send ontolog-forum mailing list submissions to
> ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> ontolog-forum-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> ontolog-forum-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ontolog-forum digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Financial Industry Business Ontology (FIBO) (William Frank)
> 2. Re: Financial Industry Business Ontology (FIBO) (William Frank)
> 3. Re: Financial Industry Business Ontology (FIBO) (Adrian Walker)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 17:59:21 -0500
> From: William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Financial Industry Business Ontology
> (FIBO)
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
> <CALuUwtB-uKfqP-zW=+ZzN+Fpsx7M3zpXBCzy09LSTW3m=L_SJA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Matthew West <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear William,
> >
> > Well it is probably just as well then that the definition of ?thing? does
> > not matter much at all for FIBO. For sure the text (probably arrived at by
> > a committee) will have no weight at all. Only the formal constraints will
> > actually matter.
> >
>
> Ah, thank you Mathew. A return to sanity from my flame. You are of
> course completely right. This, indeed, is my point about UML. Fortunately,
> nobody CARES about its absurd separation of things into incontroverable
> levels, each with its own 'language', even using different names for
> categories of things (messages, classes, dogs) and their instances
> (signals, objects, (but, gee, what are we going to call dog instances??)).
>
>
> We ULM lovers just need those great and easy to draw with greawt tools
> hierarchical state transition diagrams, sequence diagrams, activity
> diagrams, that we call all foot to the same class diagrams, and the fact
> that the mothers of uml don't like to let you put objects and classes is
> the same diagram (because Fido and Dog are in different languages!) is just
> a minor annoyance.
>
> Same here, the benefit of FIBO is not going to be a confused rehashing of
> the ULM meta model, but what is actually the financial services
> **content.**
>
> However, with a richer, yet far more simple, more rational 'upper'
> ontology, based as John suggests, on logic, especially, I think, on Common
> Logic, so that we would be able to bounce around those different
> 'languages,' talking about properties, colors, red, and the red of my
> sweater as easily as most 5 year olds can do, (at least before they are
> taught UML or OWL, for that matter), their contribution would be more
> directly usable in different languages, data modelling paradigms, and they
> would be able to express a richer set of logically necessary relations (for
> example, a trading TE, event with buyer B and seller S and traded asset A
> results in a trade settlement commitment, which is a relation representing
> a commitment with B playing the role of buyer and S as seller and A as
> exchanged asset, which in term results in a settlement EVENT ES. ....
> And, a repurchase agreement is a type of trade, with the added wrinkle that
> repurchase agreements are based on standing agreements which are in fact
> types of contracts, and a trade settlement commitment is a type of
> contract. Meaning that all of a sudden we are talking about 'a' repurchase
> agreement, as if it were a type, and trade itself is being treated as a
> type. And, the transformation from standing repurchase contract to
> repurhcase execution to settlement commitment to settlment event is in fact
> a key part of the very meaning of these concepts.
>
> I think this is at least as awkward to say in OWL as it is in UML. I think
> OWL is just old wine in a new Klein bottle. without all the other kinds of
> pretty pictures I need. On top of which, at least UML gives strong support
> for the use of part-whole and attributive relations, which are fundamental
> to financial services. (For example, a "sushi bond' or a zero coupon bond
> are NOT effectively modelled as TYPEs of bonds. They are more effectively
> understood as bonds, in which one of their parts has a relation to another
> thing with another attribute. (A U.S. sushi bond being a bond issued by
> the U.S. agency of a Japanese company, denominated in dollars, and a zero
> coupon bond being a bond in which the periodic payment terms of the bond is
> 'no periodic payments' -- i.e., the classifier depends on a characteristic
> of one of the constituents of the bond, not the bond itself). Now, given
> that the OWL tutorial tells us that Chardonnay is a type of wine, instead
> of a type of grape that can be used as a classifier of wines, and that we
> should draw a box called Chardonnay that means wine type, as well as
> another box that says White wine, and another that says Burgundy, the OWL
> tuturial would have you treat a zero coupon Sushi bond and multiply
> inheriting from Sushi bonds and zero coupon bond. With all the
> inventiveness of financial engineers, this gets impossibly ugly very fast.
> At least new Wine 'types' need 10 years for the vines to mature.
>
> OTOH, I guess that one can't expect to be making advances in an application
> of ontology, like FIBO, while at the same time advancing ontology itself.
> Yet, this just shows how poor a foundation weakly thought out upper
> ontologies like those of UML and OWL give for necessary and valuable
> efforts like FIBO.
>
>
> What I would be much more concerned about is the definition of something
> > specific to the financial industry that will actually be acted on, so
> > something like Allotment Right. Even then, of course, a textual definition
> > does no more than give guidance as to the intended interpretation. I?m sure
> > that there will be multiple models possible. I expect that almost all the
> > terms defined in FIBO are primitive.
> >
> > The main purpose of this ontology will be that different organizations
> > will use the terms with the same meaning, the value will come not from
> > reasoning but from reduced time and cost from data not having to be
> > translated between the different and independent classification schemes
> > used by different organizations.
> >
> > Good text definitions at the operational level will be critical for this
> > since it will be people making the mappings.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> >
> > Matthew West
> >
> > *Information Junction*
> >
> > Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> >
> > Skype: dr.matthew.west
> >
> > matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
> >
> > https://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> >
> > This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
> > and Wales No. 6632177.
> >
> > Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City,
> > Hertfordshire, SG6 2SU.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> > ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *William Frank
> > *Sent:* 14 December 2014 21:48
> > *To:* [ontolog-forum]
> > *Subject:* Re: [ontolog-forum] Financial Industry Business Ontology (FIBO)
> >
> >
> >
> > And, to follow on John's remark, of course the authors of this ontology
> > standard never studied, or at least never learned, any axiomatic
> > mathematics or theory of definition, whereby all defined terms need to be
> > rooted in primitive, undefined, terms, in a partial order with the
> > undefinable primitive terms as the roots.
> >
> > The 'meaning' of primitive terms can't be provided in a definition, for
> > obvious reasons. They are only given p 'meaning' in terms of their use
> > with respect to each other, as specified by the axioms.
> >
> > As a result, they do not know the difference between:
> >
> > a definition, whereby a term to be defined, a definiendum, is defined
> > using an expression (the definiens) with which the denifiniedum can be
> > replaced.
> >
> >
> >
> > an explication, whereby a primitive term is loosely explained in terms of
> > some examples of its use, some of its likely interpretations in other
> > languages, just to give a little more human weight to the intent of the
> > primitive terms.
> >
> >
> >
> > Clearly, they intended 'thing' to be a primitive term, which means, that
> > ***in their context***, and most of the likely useful ones I can imagine,
> > 'thing' will be undefinable. But it is not undefinable in and of itself.
> > It is only in the context of a given axiomatic system that a term used in
> > the system is primitive or defined. For example, 'or' and 'plus' are
> > primitive in some axiomatizations of Boolean algebra and arithmetic, and
> > not in others. (I have been told too often that 'or' is 'really' a bunch
> > of nands, whatever really is supposed to mean here.)
> >
> >
> >
> > I would imagine, though, that they intended to be using other primitive
> > terms, in addition to 'thing'. Since 'things' are what they want to show
> > in boxes. I imagine there are some arrows flying around somewhere, too.
> >
> > Sadly, after all this time, a new 'standard' that does not regard what you
> > put in a box or what you put on an arrow as a matter of a modelling
> > decision, or a matter of the syntax you use to name the concept (gerunds,
> > lamda operators, etc., anyone?) that is, how you want to CAST the concept,
> > depending on the focus of the domain, but instead still imagines that these
> > syntactic choices and accidents are something **essential** about the very
> > concept.
> >
> > So, according to standards like this, we can't REcast anything. Marriage
> > can't be cast as either an event or as a relation, so any relationship
> > between marriage and divorce ceremonies and marriage relationships is
> > purely coincidental. Moreover, whichever of those two marriage 'really'
> > is, I guess a marriage could certainly never be a 'thing.' (Before UML, I
> > doubt anyone had invented an artificial language in which it was actually
> > *impossible* for human thought to occur. Fortunately, people who actually
> > use UML, like me, use the pretty pictures, and try their best to forget
> > about its ontological absurdity, in the unlikely event that they ever were
> > exposed to that dark glass in the first place.)
> >
> > Wm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 3:56 PM, William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >
> > I wish words failed me, too. But my outrage needs some words to go with
> > it.
> >
> > I am **most** concerned not with how egregiously AWFUL this is, but what
> > it means about the engineering culture in which this could occur.
> >
> > There are two disfunctional characteristics that seem to me to be at play
> > here.
> >
> > 1.Standardize everything first, then use it later, if at all. No more
> > try before you buy. Back in pre-history, things like SQL and C were
> > introduced, adopted, then finally turned into standards. Now, every time
> > somebody has a new idea (or even, as in this case, seems to wish they were
> > having an idea), the FIRST thing they do is to define a 'standard'.
> >
> > 2. Talk (or code) first, learn (or reuse) never. This subject, as we
> > here all love to yammer on about, has a history more than 2000 years old,
> > about which lots has been learned. So, the modern day experts on how to
> > effectively stipulate what an ontology will mean by the term 'thing', as
> > well as how to effectively construct defintions, have a great deal of help
> > from the shoulders on which they stand. This so-called standard, on the
> > other hand, is like a nightmare of jumbled words that might have popped up
> > in the 2000 years of incremental improvement in our understanding of what
> > is useful to cast as a 'thing', and when.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am sure the roots of these patterns are economic, as are the roots of
> > most things, but in the past few millenia of science and engineering,
> > there have been many celebrated endeavors motivated by the desire to
> > increase our understanding of things. (or maybe, our understanding of
> > "sets of individuals which are defined according the facts (properties)
> > given for that kind of thing. ")
> >
> > Although unnecessary, I can't help but repeat Pat's quote from the
> > standard and attack a few of its more obvious failings. Here is what
> > these people sponsored by the OMG and propose as a standard for the
> > Financial Industry:
> >
> > "A Thing is defined as the set of individuals which are defined according
> > the facts (properties) given for that kind of thing. "
> >
> > Well, in general, circular definitions are undesireable.
> >
> > So, they have the concept of individual, as a primitive from which Thing
> > is constructed. So, presumably, individuals are NOT things.
> >
> >
> > Second, they do not distinquish between facts and properties, suggesting
> > that they will have a really hard time when it comes to dealing with the
> > different meta types in the ontology.
> >
> > The capstone of the absurdity, though, is that in defining thing, they
> > rely on, as part of the definition of thing, the concept of 'KIND of
> > thing.' How are we to know what a kind of thing is, before we know what a
> > thing is?
> >
> > Looking at this some more though, alot of the nonsense in the official
> > semantics for the Unified Modelling Language seems to be embedded here, in
> > that they seem to be making the same fallacy, that individuals and types
> > are so entirely different in nature that we can't even talk about them in
> > the same language. Of course, the so-called 'semantics' of UML itself
> > has the same disfunctional roots as this stuff does. Lets make some money
> > for our companies that make tools for O-O languages.
> >
> > No wonder ontology is not more widely respected, if this is the kind of
> > stuff that happens.
> >
> >
> > Wm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > This is hopelessly confused. The technical part of it is nonsense. Just as
> > a sample:
> >
> > "6.3.3.1 Thing
> > A Thing is a set theory construct. This is shown on the diagrams as a box
> > with a name. On some diagrams, additional
> > textual entries in the box show the Simple Properties about that thing.
> > A Thing is defined as the set of individuals which are defined according
> > the facts (properties) given for that kind of thing. "
> >
> > Words fail me at this point. How is it possible for educated adult human
> > beings to get themselves so unbelievably muddled over what should be one of
> > the simplest ideas ever stated?
> >
> > Pat
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 14, 2014, at 12:40 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > A report on the FIBO project:
> > >
> > >
> > http://edmcouncil.org/view/reports/20141121_FIBO_Report_to_Members.pdf
> > >
> > > See below for excerpts from the FIBO Semantics Repository Home Page.
> > >
> > > John
> > > ___________________________
> > >
> > > Source: http://www.edmcouncil.org/semanticsrepository/index.html
> > >
> > > This website provides a partial report of sections of the Financial
> > > Industry Business Ontology (FIBO). This is being submitted to the Object
> > > Management Group (OMG) as a set of proposed standard ontologies under
> > > the FIBO umbrella. These FIBO OMG specifications are optimized for
> > > semantic technology applications.
> > >
> > > Alongside these we are working to release the full canonical reference
> > > ontology (as seen in these pages) as RDF/OWL...
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > IHMC (850)434 8903 home
> > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> > FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile (preferred)
> > phayes@xxxxxxx http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/attachments/20141214/61be673f/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 19:40:05 -0500
> From: William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Financial Industry Business Ontology
> (FIBO)
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
> <CALuUwtDD2TrmXsqNMjqo-HjQHjTneZmTnvVtFOmkkivreESEnQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 4:52 PM, <David.Newman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > This is the first time that I am corresponding to the Ontolog-Forum,
> > which I follow with great interest. In my role as Chair of the FIBO effort
> > I would like to briefly address recent comments made on this thread.
> >
> >
> >
> Hi, David
>
> Sorry to have been so obstreperous. My ire is really not at FIBO, but at
> the confusion of the foundational stuff, that as Mathew West pointed out,
> is really not germane to the value that might be found in FIBO.
>
>
> > FIBO is a highly collaborative effort of the financial industry to
> > communicate a common representation of financial constructs using RDF/OWL
> > ontologies.
> >
>
> Well, there is the thing, I think of RDF and OWL as languages in which
> ontologies might be expressed, and, given their paucity of logical
> categories, only with great difficulties, compared with what one can do
> with Common Logic, or with ordinary first order logic, or in a diagramnatic
> language like . And, I think that OWL suffers from the same origin of
> ontological confusion as UML in regard to the FIBO definition of 'thing.'
>
> Breifly, in O-O programming languages, programmers define classes, mostly
> at coding time, and objects are instantiated from classes, mostly at run
> time.
>
> As metamodel for an ontology of anything except software and its execution,
> this is most absurd. Whether the chicken or the egg comes first, what
> most definitely does *not* come first is the concept of a chicken or the
> *type* of thing whose instances are called 'chickens'. I never saw the
> concept of a chicken instantiate a chicken, but eggs, which are very
> different from chickens, do in fact instantiate chickens.
>
>
> > We know our efforts are not perfect, but they do significantly advance the
> > state of the art in an industry that is in great need of standardization
> > and transparency.
> >
>
> Very true.
>
>
> > We are designing and pragmatically testing ontologies both for conceptual
> > human facing benefit as well as for executable and operational purposes.
> > We have invested in RDF/OWL because it is more expressive than the many
> > conventional legacy modeling techniques used in the industry to date. We
> > are using UML only as a means of communicating the specification developed
> > in RDF/OWL for submission to the OMG?s standardization process, which is an
> > OMG requirement. We expect users of FIBO to leverage RDF/OWL not UML.
> >
>
> Personally, I don't think that makes so much difference, in that whatever
> notation one choose to use, you don't HAVE to accept its more common
> metaphysical underpinnings. Neither OWL nor UML forces people to build
> deep hierachies.
>
> It was not the notation I was objecting to, but rather the undercurrents I
> found in your purported definition of 'thing'.
>
> We are also developing a rigorous methodology for quality assurance testing
> > of the ontologies,
> >
>
> Well, in general quality assurance has to be preceded by quality
> standards. Are there any quality standards that say definitions should
> not be circular?
>
> which not only includes ontology hygiene testing, but also business use
> > case testing. We also understand many of the limitations of RDF/OWL in
> > terms of expressivity. However, we believe this is a prudent and
> > significantly positive step forward given the technical alternatives that
> > are available to us within the industry.
> >
> >
> I wonder whether you considered what might be simpler alternatives like
> concept graphs or SKOS.
>
> >
> >
> > If you believe that you have a better way of contributing to the greater
> > good then please sign up for one of our working groups and suggest to the
> > many ontologists and practitioners who are already volunteering their time
> > and expertise on how exactly you would improve upon what has been done.
> > You are most welcome to channel your outrage into contribution.
> >
>
> Thanks. We should talk about this. But, I am trying to not only be
> outraged, but explain why.
>
>
> > Participation in the FIBO development process is not restricted to
> > participants from the financial industry, but is also open to ontologists
> > from academia and other industries.
> >
>
>
> Best,
> >
> >
> >
> > David Newman
> >
> > Strategic Planning Manager
> >
> > Senior Vice President
> >
> > Enterprise Architecture and IT Strategy
> >
> > David.Newman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Office: (415) 801-8418
> >
> > Cell: (925) 788-0529
> >
> >
> >
> > This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If
> > you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee,
> > you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message
> > or any information herein. If you have received this message in error,
> > please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this
> > message. Thank you for your cooperation.
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> > ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *William Frank
> > *Sent:* Sunday, December 14, 2014 12:56 PM
> > *To:* [ontolog-forum]
> > *Subject:* Re: [ontolog-forum] Financial Industry Business Ontology (FIBO)
> >
> >
> >
> > I wish words failed me, too. But my outrage needs some words to go with
> > it.
> >
> > I am **most** concerned not with how egregiously AWFUL this is, but what
> > it means about the engineering culture in which this could occur.
> >
> > There are two disfunctional characteristics that seem to me to be at play
> > here.
> >
> > 1.Standardize everything first, then use it later, if at all. No more
> > try before you buy. Back in pre-history, things like SQL and C were
> > introduced, adopted, then finally turned into standards. Now, every time
> > somebody has a new idea (or even, as in this case, seems to wish they were
> > having an idea), the FIRST thing they do is to define a 'standard'.
> >
> > 2. Talk (or code) first, learn (or reuse) never. This subject, as we
> > here all love to yammer on about, has a history more than 2000 years old,
> > about which lots has been learned. So, the modern day experts on how to
> > effectively stipulate what an ontology will mean by the term 'thing', as
> > well as how to effectively construct defintions, have a great deal of help
> > from the shoulders on which they stand. This so-called standard, on the
> > other hand, is like a nightmare of jumbled words that might have popped up
> > in the 2000 years of incremental improvement in our understanding of what
> > is useful to cast as a 'thing', and when.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am sure the roots of these patterns are economic, as are the roots of
> > most things, but in the past few millenia of science and engineering,
> > there have been many celebrated endeavors motivated by the desire to
> > increase our understanding of things. (or maybe, our understanding of
> > "sets of individuals which are defined according the facts (properties)
> > given for that kind of thing. ")
> >
> > Although unnecessary, I can't help but repeat Pat's quote from the
> > standard and attack a few of its more obvious failings. Here is what
> > these people sponsored by the OMG and propose as a standard for the
> > Financial Industry:
> >
> > "A Thing is defined as the set of individuals which are defined according
> > the facts (properties) given for that kind of thing. "
> >
> > Well, in general, circular definitions are undesireable.
> >
> > So, they have the concept of individual, as a primitive from which Thing
> > is constructed. So, presumably, individuals are NOT things.
> >
> >
> > Second, they do not distinquish between facts and properties, suggesting
> > that they will have a really hard time when it comes to dealing with the
> > different meta types in the ontology.
> >
> > The capstone of the absurdity, though, is that in defining thing, they
> > rely on, as part of the definition of thing, the concept of 'KIND of
> > thing.' How are we to know what a kind of thing is, before we know what a
> > thing is?
> >
> > Looking at this some more though, alot of the nonsense in the official
> > semantics for the Unified Modelling Language seems to be embedded here, in
> > that they seem to be making the same fallacy, that individuals and types
> > are so entirely different in nature that we can't even talk about them in
> > the same language. Of course, the so-called 'semantics' of UML itself
> > has the same disfunctional roots as this stuff does. Lets make some money
> > for our companies that make tools for O-O languages.
> >
> > No wonder ontology is not more widely respected, if this is the kind of
> > stuff that happens.
> >
> >
> > Wm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > This is hopelessly confused. The technical part of it is nonsense. Just as
> > a sample:
> >
> > "6.3.3.1 Thing
> > A Thing is a set theory construct. This is shown on the diagrams as a box
> > with a name. On some diagrams, additional
> > textual entries in the box show the Simple Properties about that thing.
> > A Thing is defined as the set of individuals which are defined according
> > the facts (properties) given for that kind of thing. "
> >
> > Words fail me at this point. How is it possible for educated adult human
> > beings to get themselves so unbelievably muddled over what should be one of
> > the simplest ideas ever stated?
> >
> > Pat
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 14, 2014, at 12:40 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > A report on the FIBO project:
> > >
> > >
> > http://edmcouncil.org/view/reports/20141121_FIBO_Report_to_Members.pdf
> > >
> > > See below for excerpts from the FIBO Semantics Repository Home Page.
> > >
> > > John
> > > ___________________________
> > >
> > > Source: http://www.edmcouncil.org/semanticsrepository/index.html
> > >
> > > This website provides a partial report of sections of the Financial
> > > Industry Business Ontology (FIBO). This is being submitted to the Object
> > > Management Group (OMG) as a set of proposed standard ontologies under
> > > the FIBO umbrella. These FIBO OMG specifications are optimized for
> > > semantic technology applications.
> > >
> > > Alongside these we are working to release the full canonical reference
> > > ontology (as seen in these pages) as RDF/OWL...
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > IHMC (850)434 8903 home
> > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> > FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile (preferred)
> > phayes@xxxxxxx http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/attachments/20141214/db3302a0/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 21:50:22 -0500
> From: Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Financial Industry Business Ontology
> (FIBO)
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
> <CABbsESeq-YytxG5ZD9Avc8m4prnVNYtOjKMqShoSbCUncJuT2g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> William,
>
> You wrote...
>
> *Well, in general, circular definitions are undesireable*
>
> Indeed, even though every dictionary of English uses them.
>
> There's an approach to assigning useful meanings to English sentences that
> escapes circularity by grounding to further sentences that are headings of
> extensional data tables. Paradoxically this works even if the meaning of a
> sentence depends on itself recursively -- eventually it is grounded.
>
> This approach is used in a running online system [1]. Here's an example
> [2].
>
> This is not yet proposed as a standard, so it hopefully conforms to your
> prescription of use before standard writing.
>
> Thanks for comments, -- Adrian
>
> [1] Executable Open English / Internet Business Logic
> Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
> Shared use is free, and there are no advertisements
>
> [2] www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/GrowthAndDebt1.agent
> (There are many other examples in the same directory)
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 3:56 PM, William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > I wish words failed me, too. But my outrage needs some words to go with
> > it.
> >
> > I am **most** concerned not with how egregiously AWFUL this is, but what
> > it means about the engineering culture in which this could occur.
> >
> > There are two disfunctional characteristics that seem to me to be at play
> > here.
> >
> > 1.Standardize everything first, then use it later, if at all. No more
> > try before you buy. Back in pre-history, things like SQL and C were
> > introduced, adopted, then finally turned into standards. Now, every time
> > somebody has a new idea (or even, as in this case, seems to wish they were
> > having an idea), the FIRST thing they do is to define a 'standard'.
> >
> > 2. Talk (or code) first, learn (or reuse) never. This subject, as we
> > here all love to yammer on about, has a history more than 2000 years old,
> > about which lots has been learned. So, the modern day experts on how to
> > effectively stipulate what an ontology will mean by the term 'thing', as
> > well as how to effectively construct defintions, have a great deal of help
> > from the shoulders on which they stand. This so-called standard, on the
> > other hand, is like a nightmare of jumbled words that might have popped up
> > in the 2000 years of incremental improvement in our understanding of what
> > is useful to cast as a 'thing', and when.
> >
> > I am sure the roots of these patterns are economic, as are the roots of
> > most things, but in the past few millenia of science and engineering,
> > there have been many celebrated endeavors motivated by the desire to
> > increase our understanding of things. (or maybe, our understanding of
> > "sets of individuals which are defined according the facts (properties)
> > given for that kind of thing. ")
> >
> > Although unnecessary, I can't help but repeat Pat's quote from the
> > standard and attack a few of its more obvious failings. Here is what
> > these people sponsored by the OMG and propose as a standard for the
> > Financial Industry:
> >
> > "A Thing is defined as the set of individuals which are defined according
> > the facts (properties) given for that kind of thing. "
> >
> > Well, in general, circular definitions are undesireable.
> >
> > So, they have the concept of individual, as a primitive from which Thing
> > is constructed. So, presumably, individuals are NOT things.
> >
> > Second, they do not distinquish between facts and properties, suggesting
> > that they will have a really hard time when it comes to dealing with the
> > different meta types in the ontology.
> >
> > The capstone of the absurdity, though, is that in defining thing, they
> > rely on, as part of the definition of thing, the concept of 'KIND of
> > thing.' How are we to know what a kind of thing is, before we know what a
> > thing is?
> >
> >
> > Looking at this some more though, alot of the nonsense in the official
> > semantics for the Unified Modelling Language seems to be embedded here, in
> > that they seem to be making the same fallacy, that individuals and types
> > are so entirely different in nature that we can't even talk about them in
> > the same language. Of course, the so-called 'semantics' of UML itself
> > has the same disfunctional roots as this stuff does. Lets make some money
> > for our companies that make tools for O-O languages.
> >
> > No wonder ontology is not more widely respected, if this is the kind of
> > stuff that happens.
> >
> >
> > Wm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> This is hopelessly confused. The technical part of it is nonsense. Just
> >> as a sample:
> >>
> >> "6.3.3.1 Thing
> >> A Thing is a set theory construct. This is shown on the diagrams as a box
> >> with a name. On some diagrams, additional
> >> textual entries in the box show the Simple Properties about that thing.
> >> A Thing is defined as the set of individuals which are defined according
> >> the facts (properties) given for that kind of thing. "
> >>
> >> Words fail me at this point. How is it possible for educated adult human
> >> beings to get themselves so unbelievably muddled over what should be one of
> >> the simplest ideas ever stated?
> >>
> >> Pat
> >>
> >>
> >> On Dec 14, 2014, at 12:40 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> > A report on the FIBO project:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> http://edmcouncil.org/view/reports/20141121_FIBO_Report_to_Members.pdf
> >> >
> >> > See below for excerpts from the FIBO Semantics Repository Home Page.
> >> >
> >> > John
> >> > ___________________________
> >> >
> >> > Source: http://www.edmcouncil.org/semanticsrepository/index.html
> >> >
> >> > This website provides a partial report of sections of the Financial
> >> > Industry Business Ontology (FIBO). This is being submitted to the Object
> >> > Management Group (OMG) as a set of proposed standard ontologies under
> >> > the FIBO umbrella. These FIBO OMG specifications are optimized for
> >> > semantic technology applications.
> >> >
> >> > Alongside these we are working to release the full canonical reference
> >> > ontology (as seen in these pages) as RDF/OWL...
> >> >
> >> > _________________________________________________________________
> >> > 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
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> IHMC (850)434 8903 home
> >> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> >> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> >> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile (preferred)
> >> phayes@xxxxxxx http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/attachments/20141214/4f5babfa/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> End of ontolog-forum Digest, Vol 144, Issue 11
> **********************************************
>
>
> --
> Dennis E. Wisnosky
> Senior Advisor - Consultant, Enterprise Data Management Council
>
> Founder, Wizdom Systems, Inc.
>
> CTO-CA (ret), DoD Business Mission Area
>
> DWiz C 630-240-6910
>
> Hope to see you at:
> OMG Technical Meeting
> December 8-12, 2014
> Hyatt Long Beach, Long Beach, CA USA
> WWW.EDMC.org
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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 (09)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile (preferred)
phayes@xxxxxxx http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|