I've returned home after 3 weeks of traveling, and I'd like to
make a few comments about some older remarks. (01)
From July 11, (02)
EB> The trick is not to be excessively geeky. My late mentor,
> Dr. Selden Stewart, once observed that all modeling languages
> are BLAs -- boxes, lines and annotations. As long as you stick
> with class boxes/balls, association/property lines/wires, and
> text labels (annotations), you don't violate the "anti-technical"
> prejudices of "business persons". (03)
MW> I will throw what was originally (as
> far as I know) the CDIF (CASE Data Interchange Format) notation into the
> ring. This consists of named boxes for classes/entity types and named arrows
> for relationships/relations, where the direction of the arrow tells you
> which direction to read the relationship name in (and nothing else). So you
> could have:
>
> A --part of--> B, or
> A <--has part-- B
>
> My experience is that this notation is not only very simple, but very easy
> for anyone to read. (04)
JB> and what about CMAPs for the graphical ultrasimple view but
> with simple visualisation to go with it? (05)
I don't disagree with any of those suggestions, but I would point
out that many, many notations have been implemented, and far more
are likely to be designed in the future. (06)
That is why we designed Common Logic with an abstract syntax that
allows any concrete syntax (graphic or linear) that has a formal
mapping to any subset of the abstract syntax to be called a dialect
of Common Logic. (07)
The annex to the CL standard includes three dialects that support the
full Cl semantics: (08)
Common Logic Interchange Format (CLIF), which has a LISP-like syntax. (09)
Conceptual Graph Interchange Format (CGIF) was designed to map to
and from the usual box and circle notation for CGs, but it can
just as well be mapped to a wide range of conventions for
displaying interconnected shapes of any kind. (010)
XML-based notation for Common Logic (XCL), which uses XML. (011)
All of the suggestions by Ed, Matthew, and John can be mapped to CL
or some subset of CL -- and the three annexes of the CL standard
present explicit examples of how such mappings can be defined. (012)
My recommendation is to use CL for the official standard and annotate
it with a version of controlled English that has a formal mapping to
the standard. Other graphic notations that also have formal mappings
to CL can be used as options. (013)
If an ontology is viewed through a computer interface, the viewer
could choose to see any or all of the various ways of viewing it. (014)
Following are some slides that discuss such issues: (015)
http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/cl_sowa.pdf (016)
John Sowa (017)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2009/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2009
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (018)
|