ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] Summit Engineering Tracks

To: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: joseph simpson <jjs0sbw@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 23:24:46 -0800
Message-id: <CAPnyebzgK2D2AOf6VOQn0MCP+AKZjZmEY6U-E8_wD7J7AMAjTQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Any example applications?

Or any case studies?

On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Jack Ring <jring7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think we can moderate the reductionism vs. holism divide once people comprehend the distinctions of class vs. type and learn to see both aspects of an object. Further, John Kineman's extension of Rosen's R-theory to a relational algebra seems quite promising. It occured to us back in the 1970's that in addition to set structural operators we also needed an algebra of sets. I think we are getting warmer.
Part of this may entail freeing thinkers from the von Neumann paradigm of stored program computers which makes people shy away from combinatorial constructs. Once people understand the recently patented General Purpose Set Theoretic Processor their conceptualization of 'the problem' may change considerably.

On Jan 21, 2012, at 4:01 PM, Debmacp wrote:

> That plus what should be processed by machines versus thought through by people
>
> Deb
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 21, 2012, at 4:27 PM, Jack Park <jackpark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I think that there are some very powerful insights emerging in this
>> particular thread. For me, they edge ever closer to a boundary that
>> interest me greatly:
>>
>> the boundary that separates machines from organisms.
>>
>> That boundary is the same one that frequently emerges in conversations
>> that pit "reductionism" against holistic thinking.
>>
>> I don't see reductionism and holism as necessarily being so orthogonal
>> that they get pitted against each other; as I see it, both are
>> necessary, but neither is sufficient. Sure, that point alone is well
>> worth its own conversation, but let me set that aside for a moment and
>> tell a short springboard story.
>>
>> Nicholas Rashevski [1], considered the father of mathematical biology,
>> wrote a paper "Topology and life: In search of general mathematical
>> principles in biology and sociology" in 1954, which argued that for
>> all the math he invented, we still don't understand what makes
>> organisms tick. He launched the "relational biology" inquiry. He
>> sought a way to represent a "canonical organism".  His student Robert
>> Rosen [2] eventually replaced Rashevski's graph and "organismic set"
>> approaches with category theory, and later wrote the book _Life
>> Itself_ which explains both the ontological and epistemological
>> grounds for his canonical organism representation, which entailed two
>> "components": metabolism and repair. Category theory showed that those
>> two entailed reproduction.  What is important in this is the
>> observation that what is hard to represent are all of the necessary
>> "relationships" that exist between and among the components, and with
>> the external environment.
>>
>> I offer that story as a suggestion that special consideration needs to
>> be given to relations. I will not suggest that more or less
>> consideration be given when weighed against the components being
>> modeled; I'll just leave it as a suggestion that relations in complex
>> systems -- organismic systems -- are important. Rosen was not able to
>> make graph or set theoretic approaches solve Rashevsky's quest;
>> Rashevsky died before Rosen realized a candidate solution, one rooted
>> in category theory.
>>
>> I read it somewhere that while set theory lets you talk about members
>> of a set, category theory lets you talk about the social lives of
>> those members.  I'm not smart enough to validate that, just smile.
>>
>> JackP
>>
>> Jack
>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Rashevsky
>> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rosen_%28theoretical_biologist%29
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Deborah MacPherson <debmacp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> How to fix?
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Jack Ring <jring7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I suggest that this thread is beginning to highlight the absence of a
>>>> general semantics (Korsybski, Peirce, Bickerton, etc.) facet of the  Summit.
>>>> The importance of this facet comes to the fore as big gets BIG then BIGGER.
>>>>
>>>> General systems theory and practice are an insufficent basis.  In the
>>>> traverse from a) an incorrect perception of a problem situation to z) the
>>>> self-sustaining operation of an intervention system that is exemplary in
>>>> quality, parsimony and beauty several languages will be used to express the
>>>> transformations and orchestrations of the numerous knowledge vectors as they
>>>> evolve.
>>>>
>>>> Better fix this now.
>>>> Jack
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 21, 2012, at 7:28 AM, k Goodier wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Andrea,
>>>>
>>>> Your note is exactly the kind of dialog I was hoping to get started.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It brings up what I believe is an important distinction for applied
>>>> ontology. In this case to engineered systems and to engineering of systems
>>>> (meta-engineering). The distinction is between the application, the language
>>>> used to talk about the application, and the specific knowledge (ontology)
>>>> represented within the language. OWL2 is a perfect place to discuss some
>>>> issues. OWL2 is not only an ontology language, but a formal ontology
>>>> language, and has the virtue that it has good reasoners. Starting from this
>>>> about 4 years ago I started looking at and attempting to use OWL2 for
>>>> representing product requirements and product designs. This starts in a
>>>> series of papers with among others Ian Horrocks, and David Leal. It clearly
>>>> is very promising. However, I have found that it is insufficient to
>>>> represent the semantics needed for concepts such as part-whole relations.
>>>> Certainly, one can introduce binary properties and call them part
>>>> properties. But the language without extensions is unable to do a good job
>>>> of representing a lot of engineering concepts. I am sure the ontologists
>>>> would concur. So for me it is not a question of throwing OWL out, it is what
>>>> semantic concepts are needed, how to express their semantics, and extensions
>>>> to OWL are needed. Also, by the way, as an engineer I have been very much
>>>> involved with using SysML to describe large scale systems and their
>>>> interaction with the world. I view SysML as an ontology language, albeit one
>>>> without a formal semantics. I also have been very much concerned with
>>>> retrofitting SysML with a formal semantics and adding OWL class and role
>>>> constructions. All to be able to build suitable ontologies for engineered
>>>> products and more recently biomedical systems such as the human heart.
>>>>
>>>> - Henson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Westerinen, Andrea R. [mailto:ANDREA.R.WESTERINEN@xxxxxxxx]
>>>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 12:06 PM
>>>> To: Ontology Summit 2011 discussion; henson.graves@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Cc: Matthew West
>>>> Subject: RE: [ontology-summit] Summit Engineering Tracks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have recently written a paragraph summarizing "why (OWL) ontologies?"
>>>> for a customer.  It tries to address some of the points that Henson raises
>>>> below.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here it is with the identifying text removed:
>>>>
>>>> Xxx requires the analysis, communication, comparison and [alignment]
>>>> of [concepts] within and across authoritative tiers, addressing broad
>>>> (high-level) to specific (low-level) enterprise environments.  These
>>>> requirements necessitate the creation of formal, semantically
>>>> enabled models [of the concepts], and their identifying and supporting
>>>> properties, relationships and individuals.  Providing both a formal
>>>> encoding and semantic richness allows normalization of the definitions
>>>> (intent) and provides the ability to aggregate, compare, and reason over the
>>>> [concepts].  These tasks and requirements are well-aligned to the goals and
>>>> capabilities of an ontology-based approach.  Ontologies, defined using W3C's
>>>> OWL, can be created, stored and reasoned over using COTS tooling.  In
>>>> addition, many complementary supporting ontologies can be immediately
>>>> imported, aligned and reused (such as the provenance and time/event
>>>> ontologies from W3C, an ISO-3166 country ontology at downlode.org,
>>>> and specific domain ontologies such as Xxx).  Even if existing data is not
>>>> in an ontological format, but is perhaps stored as a relational database,
>>>> there is existing tooling to convert this data to an RDF encoding.  (Taking
>>>> this approach removes the need to use complex staging tables to mediate
>>>> database information.)  Using an OWL ontology as the basis for the Xxx Model
>>>> allows the formalization of not only the core concepts (...) but also puts
>>>> strong focus on the relationships between these concepts and the definition
>>>> of formal-logic-based restrictions, facts/axioms, and rules.  Using COTS
>>>> OWL reasoners, logical analyses of the consistency, completeness and minimal
>>>> set definitions are straightforward, along with the ability to align
>>>> concepts and infer new data based on logical expressions and if/then (Horn)
>>>> rules.  Communication of a standardized, ontological, machine-understandable
>>>> format [to environment-specific] translation agents will produce
>>>> consistent, traceable and auditable definitions for specific end-point
>>>> implementations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andrea Westerinen
>>>> | SAIC - CISBU | Sr Technical Expert | westerinena@xxxxxxxx | bb
>>>> 425-281-3611
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> From: henson graves [mailto:henson.graves@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>>>> Sent: Fri 1/20/2012 9:00 AM
>>>> To: 'Ontology Summit 2011 discussion'
>>>> Cc: 'Matthew West'
>>>> Subject: [ontology-summit] Summit Engineering Tracks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The track co-champions are soliciting input, participation, and
>>>> references
>>>> for the two tracks on engineering of large systems and the resulting
>>>> engineered systems.
>>>>
>>>> My interest for the engineering tracks is to establish dialog in the
>>>> Summit
>>>> not only to identify engineering problems for which ontology can offer
>>>> solutions.  But to go beyond that to dialog on what ontology results and
>>>> methodology can be applied and look at use cases for its application. Many
>>>> people in the industry of developing and using engineered systems are
>>>> aware
>>>> that ontology may provide value to many of their problems and issues.  But
>>>> the industry position is what ontology technology can help, how do we use
>>>> it, what are the benefits, and what will it cost. At least this has always
>>>> been the management response when I have taken proposals regarding
>>>> ontology
>>>> forward in industry.
>>>>
>>>> If this did not go to the general interest list, someone give me a pointer
>>>> to the right one.
>>>>
>>>> - Henson Graves
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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/OntologySummit2012/
>>>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
>>>>
>>>> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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/OntologySummit2012/
>>>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
>>>>
>>>> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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/OntologySummit2012/
>>>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
>>>> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ********************************************************
>>>
>>> Deborah L. MacPherson CSI CCS, AIA
>>> Specifications and Research Cannon Design
>>> Projects Director, Accuracy&Aesthetics
>>>
>>>
>>> The content of this email may contain private
>>> and confidential information. Do not forward,
>>> copy, share, or otherwise distribute without
>>> explicit written permission from all correspondents.
>>>
>>> ********************************************************
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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/OntologySummit2012/
>>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
>>> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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/OntologySummit2012/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
>> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/OntologySummit2012/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/


_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/



--
Joe Simpson

Sent From My DROID!!

_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012  
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/     (01)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>