[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] master data vs. ontologies

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 18:13:38 -0500
Message-id: <54DD33A2.2050205@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Matthew, Alex, David, Ravi, and Kingsley,    (01)

> What the ontologies and master data represent is essentially
> the same thing.    (02)

I agree.  And the operations performed by a computer program
are just as logical as anything specified in OWL.  (But what
that program does so logically might not be what the programmer
had intended.)    (03)

>> Anybody who has ever written a program that runs correctly
>> on a digital computer is a mathematician.    (04)

> if and only if that anybody has proved correctness    (05)

My claim does not require a formal proof:    (06)

  1. Every digital computer is a logic machine.  And every program
     performs logical operations on strings of bits.  But there is
     no guarantee that what the program does has any relationship
     to what the programmer had intended.    (07)

  2. But anybody who has written a program that has performed at
     least one computation as intended has correctly anticipated
     what the computer would do for that computation.    (08)

  3. Therefore, that programmer has demonstrated the ability to think
     logically -- at least for that example.  If you want to be 99.9%
     certain, ask the programmer to demonstrate 10 correct results.    (09)

> Ontologies are data models written using logic-based languages and
> can cover whatever scope is of interest.    (010)

I agree with Matthew that the notation need not be called a logic
for the specification to be called an ontology.  (And it's irrelevant
whether the person who wrote the specification used the O-word).    (011)

> Do any mapping tools exist?    (012)

Many kinds of mapping tools have been developed.  Logic programming
languages such as Prolog are an example.  UML diagrams can be and
have been mapped to logic, and there are tools for using UML diagrams
(and many similar notations) to generate some or all of a computable
specification.    (013)

As Kingsley mentioned, there are also tools that map declarations
for one computable form to declarations for another.    (014)

> Are organizations such as OMG and W3C doing it already    (015)

Yes.  OMG sponsored the fUML specifications for a subset of UML:
http://www.omg.org/spec/FUML/Current/    (016)

I discuss many projects and reports for various kinds of
mappings on the web page "Semantics for interoperable systems":
http://www.jfsowa.com/ikl    (017)

John    (018)

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    (019)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>