"Why, having established "as expressed" would you introduce "as realized" to further complicate the reader's ladder of inference? What is the benefit? Remember, we are striving for human interoperability, not pedagogy."
Actually I thought I was clarifying the readers ladder of inference. So I must have misinterpreted the first occurrence of "as expressed" in " .... model of X as expressed in a language..." as language expressions. Were you intending to convey that modelers 1) "express" their mental models with language to create written models, 2) "express" those same mental models with technology. I kind of get this but still not would not use the term 'express'. But that is just me. If this is not what was intended, then I'm lost and need clarification.
"If an ontology is a collection of mapped concepts then a collection of mapped ontologies must be a reinvention of the pernicious notion of System of Systems."
I agree with the thrust of this statement. For quite a while now, it has seemed to me that K. Bouldings "spectrum" of theories, a system-of-systems is not that far removed from, for example, a lattice of (micro) theories. Both domain experts and systems engineers may find this lattice useful.
So why ontology and ontology engineering for big (I prefer the term complex to big) systems? A similar thing could be done, for example, with federations. One of the principle uses for the tool could be semantic interoperability. Both domain experts and systems engineers may use this.
It looks like this got off the System Component topic. Perhaps a new thread should be started, or moved to a more appropriate thread, unless we can bring it back to components.
Matthew K. Hettinger
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
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)