Matt,
Apologies for not asking a clear question. It seemed to me that "as realized"
implied a different actor/viewpoint than did "as expressed" whereas the
parallelism of 'as expressed' was important in order to emphasize that the
operation was the same even though the operands were different. I was not
suggesting that your phrasing was erroneous or misleading, only wondering why
the switch because parsimony suffers with every new term introduced. (01)
This may be right on the system component topic. If an ontology fits the
defintion of system then the modularization of an ontology becomes a systems
architecting concern and an infrastructure that enables interoperability of the
'chunks' becomes key.I think this means that ontology design involved both
general semantics theory and general systems theory. (02)
Maybe? (03)
On Jan 31, 2012, at 12:18 AM, Matthew K. Hettinger wrote: (04)
> @Jack
> "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.
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Matthew K. Hettinger
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/ (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (06)
|