ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] ODM [was - Re: Re: Invitation to a brainstorming c

To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "MacPherson, Deborah" <dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:17:10 -0500
Message-id: <43F2A07F08761449ABD2C0664C74D9FC1744E6B679@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks Peter !
    (01)



DEBORAH MACPHERSON, CSI CCS, AIA
Specifications and Research
    (02)

Cannon Design
1100 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 2900
Arlington, Virginia 22209
    (03)

Direct Line 703 907 2353
4 Digit Dial 2353
    (04)

dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cannondesign.com
    (05)

 Please consider the environment before printing this email.
    (06)


-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Yim
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 11:52 AM
To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion
Subject: [ontology-summit] ODM [was - Re: Re: Invitation to a brainstorming 
call for the 2011 Ontology Summit]
    (07)

Deborah and All,
    (08)

For those who weren't with us then ... this may be a good starting point.
See ElisaKendall's presentation at:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2005_09_08#nidEWF
    (09)

Regards.  =ppy
--
    (010)


On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:31 AM, MacPherson, Deborah 
<dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Ravi

>

>

>

> I need to learn more about the ODM activities - is this related to the 

> meeting and OMG work discussed at NSF a couple weeks ago?

>

>

>

> Regards

>

>

>

> Deborah

>

>

>

> DEBORAH MACPHERSON, CSI CCS, AIA

>

> Specifications and Research

>

>

>

> Cannon Design

>

> 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 2900

>

> Arlington, Virginia 22209

>

>

>

> Direct Line 703 907 2353

>

> 4 Digit Dial 2353

>

>

>

> dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>

> cannondesign.com

>

>

>

> ü Please consider the environment before printing this email.

>

>

>

> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ravi 

> sharma

> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:16 AM

> To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion

> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [BULK] Re: [BULK] Re: Invitation to a 

> brainstorming call for the 2011 Ontology Summit

>

>

>

> Deborah

>

> I assumed you might be following the ODM activities.

>

> ODM efforts allow for interoperation bet ween RDF OWL and MOF UML. 

> Please refer to Elisa Kendall (Chair), Evan Wallace and our work on ODM under 
>OMG.

>

> Regards.

>

> Ravi

>

> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:55 AM, MacPherson, Deborah 

> <dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>

> Hi Cecil

>

> Actually I believe someone else said ”You can translate any OWL 

> ontology to UML, but not vice-versa". I've only been talking about the 

> NIEM data model and applications to the building industry

>

> Regards

>

> Deborah

>

>

> DEBORAH MACPHERSON, CSI CCS, AIA

> Specifications and Research

>

> Cannon Design

> 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 2900

> Arlington, Virginia 22209

>

> Direct Line 703 907 2353

> 4 Digit Dial 2353

>

> dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> cannondesign.com

>

> ü Please consider the environment before printing this email.
    (011)


> -----Original Message-----
>

> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cecil O.

> Lynch, MD, MS

> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 9:11 AM

> To: 'Ontology Summit 2011 discussion'

>

> Subject: [BULK] Re: [ontology-summit] [BULK] Re: Invitation to a 

> brainstorming call for the 2011 Ontology Summit

> Importance: Low

>

> Deborah,

>

> 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

>

> Cecil Lynch
    (012)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 

> MacPherson, Deborah

> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 5:48 AM

> To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion

> Subject: [SPAM] Re: [ontology-summit] [BULK] Re: Invitation to a 

> brainstorming call for the 2011 Ontology Summit

>

> These all sound like good points to include in the communique and 

> announcement for the summit theme

>

>

>

> DEBORAH MACPHERSON, CSI CCS, AIA

> Specifications and Research

>

> Cannon Design

> 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 2900

> Arlington, Virginia 22209

>

> Direct Line 703 907 2353

> 4 Digit Dial 2353

>

> dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> cannondesign.com

>

> ü Please consider the environment before printing this email.
    (013)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. 

> Sowa

> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 6:53 PM

> To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> Subject: [BULK] Re: [ontology-summit] Invitation to a brainstorming 

> call for the 2011 Ontology Summit

> Importance: Low

>

> Deborah, Matthew, Ahsan, Steve, Ali, Nicola, and Jack,

>

> DMcP:

>> In your view is it even possible for model-driven exchange 

>> environments to succeed without including ontologies?

>

> MW:

>> I would argue that databases are willy nilly ontologies, since they 

>> make statements about the sorts of things there are, and some rules 

>> that govern them. Perhaps more importantly a database can be a very 

>> suitable implementation environment for an ontology, depending on 

>> what your purposes are.

>

> I agree with Matthew.  In the 1970s, DB designers were discussing very 

> similar issues about ontology that we are talking about here.

>

> Type hierarchies, E-R diagrams, and Petri nets were used in the 1960s, 

> they were adopted by the DB community, and they are part of the UML 
>collection.

>  In fact, UML diagrams are probably the most widely used notation for 

> ontologies on planet earth.  UML plus OCL (the object- constraint 

> language) provides a *superset* of OWL, but in a much more readable notation.

>

> The programming community is already familiar with UML diagrams, which 

> provide representations for type hierarchies, for the type constraints 

> and cardinality constraints on relations, for time dependencies in 

> activity diagrams, etc.  If more expressive power is needed, UML also 

> includes OCL as a general-purpose notation for FOL.

>

> That is far more expressive power in a far more readable format than OWL.

>  You can translate any OWL ontology to UML, but not vice-versa.

>

> AM:

>> What do you think about SKOS-XL instead OWL for building ontology?

>

> I have no objection to anybody using whatever tools they find useful.

> But it shows that OWL is a very difficult language to learn and use 

> effectively.  Much simpler languages supplemented with diagrams would 

> be very attractive to many users.

>

> SW:

>> Would that I had a nickel for every time I've seen someone 

>> misinterpret a "controlled English" sentence.

>

> I'd be delighted to take that bet, provided that you give me a penny 

> for every time I've seen somebody misinterpret a statement in some 

> formal language (logic, programming language, etc.).

>

> Please note that COBOL is a rather poor example of what can be done 

> with English-like syntax, but it was the most widely used programming 

> language during the second half of the 20th century.

>

> SW:

>> My conclusion, then, is that end users are likely to understand the 

>> benefits of ontologies well before programmers.

>

> Programmers and database administrators understood the need for 

> ontologies since the 1970s.  But they called them conceptual schemas, 

> structured analysis and design, etc.

>

> SW:

>> The model in question is IDEF1-X. Information exchange is based on 

>> database replication...

>

> That's ontology!  Note Matthew's comment and my response.

>

> AH:

>> The argument I've used (with limited, but notable success) with the 

>> programmers around me, is that an ontology can also serve as a 

>> contract between the software development team and each module.

>

> I agree.  And the people who were designing software development tools 

> in the 1970s used very similar arguments.  The only missing jargon was 

> the word 'ontology'.  Instead, they used terms like 'specification' or 

> 'conceptual schema' or even 'IDEF1X'.

>

> AH:

>> Fleshing out these different roles would be instrumental in helping 

>> focus and identifying the different types of supporting arguments.

>

> MB:

>> Another way of framing this is that every application has an ontology 

>> anyway. The question is how it is framed, if at all. Are the meanings 

>> of terms resident only in the head of the developer, or in some 

>> logical model with written term definitions (weak semantics) or in a 

>> formal language which > grounds the meanings of terms with reference 

>> to some logical formalism?

>

> I agree with both of those statements.  And I encourage anybody who 

> has been using OWL to take another look at UML.  For most of what they 

> do with OWL, they could specify much more clearly with UML.

>

> SW:

>> It's probably better to think of every application having multiple 

>> views of data. The view that is presented to the user may differ 

>> significantly from the view that's in memory, which in turn may 

>> differ from the view that's persisted.

>

> I strongly agree.  And that's another argument for UML as a better 

> ontology language than OWL.  The various diagrams give you multiple 

> views of the subject.  But OWL is designed to enforce tunnel vision.

>

> SW:

>> The case to make is that the OWL model of information is more "natural"

>> than the relational model, so the application developer spends less 

>> time and effort translating a business model to OWL than to SQL.

>

> SQL happens to be a very primitive version of the relational model.

> Ted Codd was not happy about the SQL version of relational semantics.

> In 1979, Codd and Date made a strong case for adding a type hierarchy 

> in the RM/T extensions.  In fact, I assumed a type hierarchy in my 

> first published article on conceptual graphs in 1976:

>

>    http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/cg1976.pdf

>    Conceptual Graphs for a Database Interface

>

> NG:

>> Deciding how much effort to put in developing a particular ontology 

>> is a crucial choice, and it is very important to distinguish the 

>> cases where a proper ontological analysis pays off, and is indeed a 

>> crucial aspect of success, from those where a "lightweight" approach 

>> is sufficient.

>

> I agree.  In fact, there is a great deal of informal analysis that 

> must be done before it's possible to write any kind of formal specification.

>

> JR:

>> How about engaging them in a survey to estimate the cost of "IT Babel"

>> in their respective enterprises? We might even mention the trillion 

>> dollar elephant in the room --- insecure systems.

>

> That is indeed a serious problem.  People have been talking about it 

> since the 1970s.  The only thing new is that the word 'ontology' has 

> been thrown into the pot.  But talking has not solved the problems.

>

> John
    (014)

_________________________________________________________________
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/ 
    (015)

_________________________________________________________________
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/     (016)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>