Dear Matthew, Leo, Jack, and Cecil, (01)
LO:
> I recall in the late 1980s, papers in the relational database
> community that began to address semantic data models. Even these
> were not ontologies. The database folks did not address only real
> world semantics, but included many system and database level
> constructs -- as data models still do. (02)
MW:
> I quite agree that all this work was very significant, which largely
> grew out of what was called in the '70s Artificial Intelligence.
> And I'm quite happy that this is described as ontology. But what I
> do not think is justified is a terminology land grab that says that
> this is all that can be called ontology in a computational sense. (03)
I agree with Matthew and Leo. There's a difference between an ontology
and a data model, but that point was recognized in the 1970s, with the
ANSI/SPARC three-schema model. The conceptual schema was described
in different ways by different people, but many of them defined it
in a way that is indistinguishable from modern ontologies. (04)
For anybody who wants a "time stamp" on ideas, I recommend the following
collection of position papers that were presented in 1980: (05)
http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/sigmod/pingree80.html
Workshop on Data Abstraction, Databases and Conceptual Modelling (06)
This workshop brought together a few dozen people from the DB, AI,
and programming language communities. Pat Hayes and I are two of the
AI people who still participate in Ontolog Forum. (07)
JR:
> In one case, early 1970's, Simula educed a new way of representing
> intelligence spacecraft in a computational device. Then current
> practice was to write programs representing the spacecraft operations
> and limits. (08)
Yes. Simula 67 was the world's first object-oriented programming
language, and in some respects it was more advanced than some current
versions. Some of the talks at that 1980 conference related those
techniques to AI and DB -- in ways that are called ontology today. (09)
COL:
> Can you explain your statement "You can translate any OWL ontology
> to UML, but not vice-versa."
>
> The OMG Ontology Definition Metamodel specification seems to contradict
> your statement. Table 16.12 of the specification lists the OWL features
> with no equivalent UML feature as :
>
> Thing, global properties, autonomous individual' allValuesFrom,
> someValuesFrom, SymmetricProperty, TransitiveProperty, Classes as
> instances, disjointWith, complementOf (010)
I was the one who stated the original quotation above. The passage
from the OMG document didn't make a clear distinction between logic
and ontology. (011)
UML consists of a variety of diagrams types, each of which represents
one subset of logic together with some built-in ontology. But UML
supplements the diagrams with the Object-Constraint Language (OCL),
which can express full first-order logic. (012)
Class diagrams are the most widely used diagram type, and they
represent a very large part of what people represent in OWL, but
I agree that OWL can represent more detail about some important
aspects. (013)
But the other UML diagrams represent many aspects that OWL cannot
represent, and OCL is a superset of what OWL can express. (014)
In any case, the greatest strength of the UML diagrams is their
highly readable way of representing multiple aspects of a system
in a way that connects with design and development methodologies.
I prefer to use the word 'mosaic' for the UML languages and to
treat OWL as one component that could be added to the UML mosaic. (015)
But I would emphasize that OWL should be treated as just one
component. The UML scope is much broader and more inclusive
than OWL. (016)
John (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/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (018)
|