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)
|