ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: David Price <dprice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 01:52:12 +0000
Message-id: <4BE3D867-D2AE-4182-A0F2-377D7E738968@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 12 Feb 2015, at 23:13, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Dear Matthew, Alex, David, Ravi, and Kingsley,
> 
> MW
>> What the ontologies and master data represent is essentially
>> the same thing.
> 
> 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.)    (01)

As I said, it is true if the ontology is about MD and is not true in any other 
case.    (02)

> 
> JFS
>>> Anybody who has ever written a program that runs correctly
>>> on a digital computer is a mathematician.    (03)

I've never heard a software developer claim any such thing. The common 
definition is "an expert in or student of mathematics" which, while nearly 
being circular, does eliminate almost everyone on the planet. My 7 year old son 
can use Scratch and move a cat around the screen ... that does not make him a 
mathematician. That said, it's a pointless point to debate so I'll stop now.    (04)

> 
> AS
>> if and only if that anybody has proved correctness
> 
> My claim does not require a formal proof:
> 
>  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.
> 
>  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.
> 
>  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.
> 
> DP
>> Ontologies are data models written using logic-based languages and
>> can cover whatever scope is of interest.
> 
> 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).    (05)

As I said, my experience is that this is the only useful definition I've run 
across. Definitions like "a formal specification of a shared conceptualization" 
mean absolutely nothing to most of the people involved in modelling in an 
enterprise. If not logic-based, then ontology  = data model and that adds no 
value wrt making distinctions in what people should be thinking about with 
respect to trying to be more semantic in their IT artifacts. When doing 
training what I actually try to get into people's heads is that (OWL) 
ontologies are just set theory + logic for inference + models being about the 
real world rather than computer representations of the world (e.g. not models 
of RDBMS tables about Cars, but models about Cars themselves). I'll also add 
that the current ontology languages leave a lot to be desired ... hope there 
are improvements in the future (e.g. in almost every enterprise use case I've 
seen the open world assumption that OWL makes is nonsense, that should be moved 
to the interpretation specs rather than the language definition itself).    (06)

> 
> RS
>> Do any mapping tools exist?
> 
> 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.    (07)

Mapping tools are hard and IMO there are no good ones, and UML is certainly not 
one. The problem is probably down to the fact that mapping is hard and there 
are often cases where something in one model really can't be represented in 
another and yet people are forced to try.    (08)

> 
> As Kingsley mentioned, there are also tools that map declarations
> for one computable form to declarations for another.
> 
> RS
>> Are organizations such as OMG and W3C doing it already
> 
> Yes.  OMG sponsored the fUML specifications for a subset of UML:
> http://www.omg.org/spec/FUML/Current/    (09)

I would not describe FUML as being for the purpose of being a mapping tool. 
It's about giving UML a formal logical foundation, and executability a some 
level.    (010)

Cheers,
David    (011)

> 
> I discuss many projects and reports for various kinds of
> mappings on the web page "Semantics for interoperable systems":
> http://www.jfsowa.com/ikl
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>     (012)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (013)

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