John,
I completely agree with you on this point. What I see is that UML and SysML
while needing improvement have become defacto standards in engineering
domains. Further, OMG the keeper of these language specifications recognizes
that the standards need improvement and are beginning to recognize that the
languages need a formal semantics. There are several RFPs from OMG related
to this. One of them is called something like a" precise semantics for
composite structure" which is the topic of the dialog Matthew and I have
been having. There is also beginning to be a recognition that simply
embedding a language in a logic may not be sufficient. There may or may not
be additional axioms for classes/types needed to capture the ontology of
systems and component parts, etc. (01)
By the way the" lowest hanging ontological fruit" in my opinion is an upper
ontology for engineering and other enterprise artifacts such as
specifications, test results, test plans, methods used in analysis and test,
etc. This is the appropriate topic for engineering of big systems. The
dialog with Matthew is about ontology of engineered systems. In the case
of enterprise modeling including engineering enterprises the oncologist's
upper ontologies are very usable. While some of the proposed standards along
these lines will never work. (02)
- Henson (03)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 8:52 AM
To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Ontology Engineering for Systems Engineering (04)
On 2/22/2012 9:04 AM, henson graves wrote:
> My choice of logic, as you can see from a diagram in the paper is type
> theory such as developed by Lambek and Scott.
> This is a version of higher order logic in that it has terms which
> from a full higher order logic. It can be expressed as a deduction
> system and as a FOL theory with a rich type structure. I also
> developed and implemented a type theory logic around the same time
> which was derived from Lawvere's FOL axioms for a topos. It was called
> Algos. I have been able to embed large parts of SysML into this version of
type theory. (05)
I think that's an interesting approach. I have a high regard for the
research on type theory, and I'm glad that you have found it useful. (06)
But my point about proactive standards still stands. When your tools become
successful in the marketplace, then it would be appropriate to consider them
as standards. (07)
John (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (010)
|