Dear Henson, (01)
There are a few things that you seem to have misunderstood about ISO 15926. (02)
<snip>
>
> Language and Notation: As I am sure that you would agree language details
> matter a great deal in establishing the necessary conditions for a
language to
> be successful, but they are not sufficient. I believe that you noted that
> your proposed candidate ISO 15926 did not have a good notation. There are
> deep reasons that have to do with foundations of mathematics and ontology
why
> UML is successful where its predecessors where not. Its superiority over
its
> successors has been validated empirically by its success in building large
> systems. This is not to say that it doesn't need improvement. It is to say
> that one wants to build on its success, which of course means you have to
> understand why it is successful. (03)
MW: ISO 15926 Part 2 is written in EXPRESS, a data modelling language of
roughly the same capabilities as the UML static modelling language. As you
say, you have to start somewhere. But what we effectively did, was to build
a new language with it. The key thing you cannot do with UML or any data
modelling language is go through multiple levels of abstraction (instance
of) within a single model space. We needed to do that in ISO 15926, and the
result is very powerful. (04)
MW: In fact we have created a graphical notation around this, which has been
very useful for working out details, but is a bit like assembler, you need
quite a lot to do something simple.
>
> Formal Semantics: You say Formal semantic for such a language is
prerequisite,
> but there are many languages with formal semantics. Which to choose?
Which
> one do you choose and why? The choice of language is a serious business,
not
> an academic one. There are perfectly good languages with formal (logical)
> semantics that have been around for a long time that conceivably have
> sufficient expressivity for engineering applications. Yet they are not in
> common use in engineering. One might ask why. The reason is an
"engineering
> problem".
> Integration of Ontology with modeling languages: You note that Conrad
Bock at
> al. had papers where they argue for more substantial integration of
ontology
> into product modeling languages and suggest an approach which is to
capture
> patterns such as "Product Model" or "System" as meta-classes at the
> M2 Level in the MOF architecture. This makes good sense to me and I agree
> with this viewpoint. However, this view is perfectly consistent with the
> building on UML argument. One still needs a language which is or is
embedded
> as the language of a logic. The meta-classes which describe the
ontological
> patterns such as Product Model are simply specializations of the
meta-class
> for model at the M2 level. (05)
MW: The result for ISO 15926 is that there is no separation into these
levels, but we did include the ontological commitments at this stage. (06)
MW: Strictly, I think it is better to have a language layer that is
ontologically neutral, and then a layer that is your ontological
commitments, and then a layer that is your domain model(s) but they do not
have to be in different meta spaces.
>
> Ontological Commitment:
<snip>
> As noted UML's
> ontological commitment is weak, this is a good thing for getting things
right
> in the future. (07)
MW: Yes. Your base language should have as few ontological commitments as
possible. The commitment that UML makes is the separation between classes
and instances, and that is unfortunate in my view. (08)
<snip> (09)
> Your Proposed Solution: You propose JSO 15926 as a candidate. Can you
explain
> what its formal logic-based semantics is and its ontology commitments are,
and
> what kind of usage and tool support it has, what submarines and nuclear
> reactors have been built with it? Is it sufficient to build autopoietic
> systems? (010)
MW: Its foundations are in EXPRESS (strictly a subset of EXPRESS) from which
it gets its logic based semantics.
The ontological commitments are the standard 4D ones with an extensional
basis for identity of individuals and classes, together with possible worlds
to deal with semantics. For example, it contains all you need to model the
pump example we have been discussing.
There are only limited tools to support its use, but I would not expect many
- it is not after all like UML.
It is not in use in the defence industry so I would not expect submarines to
be built with it, but offshore oil rigs and undersea installations have used
it, and the main CAD systems used in the process industry claim to support
it. The nuclear industry is considering it.
It certainly won't build autopoietic systems for you, so it is certainly not
sufficient, however, it contains nothing that would prevent you from using
it to build them either. (011)
Regards (012)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (013)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (014)
> Regards,
> Henson
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anatoly Levenchuk [mailto:ailev@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 12:00 PM
> To: 'henson graves'; 'Bock, Conrad'; chris.paredis@xxxxxxxxxx; 'David
Price';
> 'Fredrick A Steiner'; 'Victor Agroskin'; Ron_C_Williamson@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
'David
> Leal'; 'Ontology Summit 2012 discussion'
> Cc: 'Matthew West'; Chris Partridge
> Subject: RE: INCOSE Ontology Action Group, onto SysML/UML
>
> Dear Henson,
>
> Argument about huge legacy as a reason to plan future on a base of current
"de
> facto" legacy is not good even if we can label it with "pragmatic".
> According this thinking we should bring formal semantics to COBOL and stay
> with this COBOL FORMAL to eternity due to many years of status of COBOL as
de
> facto standard of programming.
>
> There are programming-in-the-small (one team, one computer) and
programming-
> in-the-large (web programming),
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_in_the_large_and_programming_in_the
> _small. There are different language patterns in these different kinds of
> programming-in-the-*. I regard programming, modeling and ontologizing as
> different facets of one discipline. Architectural modeling (with languages
> like SysML or ArchiMate) is simply subdiscipline of this general
discipline.
> As a systems engineer I need language for arhcitecturing that support
> modeling-in-the-large, where I every day assemble architectural work of
many
> people. Formal semantic for such a language is prerequisite, but there are
> many languages with formal semantics. Which to choose?
>
> Most detailed answer I found in a book of Chris Partridge "Business
Objects:
> Re-Engineering for Re-Use"
>
http://www.borosolutions.co.uk/research/content/files/books/BusObj-Printed-2
> 0050531-with-watermark.pdf/at_download/file (while this book has no
references
> to UML or ISO 15926 or any other language or software or standard). To
have
> scalable for eco-system architecture (or any other) description I need
abandon
> substance paradigm (that is very intuitive!) to logic paradigm (that is
not
> intuitive at all, this is counterintuitive). In another word I need
> architectural description not in objects-with-attribute (object-oriented,
like
> UML/SysML) languages but in objects-with-relations (fact-oriented, like
> ArchiMate or ISO 15926) languages.
>
> We have difficulties when tried to introduce ISO 15926 in Russia: nobody
> understand why they need something new in this Big Systems game (namely
> Nuclear Power Plants and Shipbuilding industries). Now we start our "crash
> course" of PLM integration with introducing of "Business Objects:
> Re-Engineering for Re-Use". After this our clients knows names of
integration
> (in-the-large) problems they have and knows what can be solutions (logic
> paradigm, not formal semantics for substance paradigm) to their problems.
Then
> ISO 15926 study is very easy: people understand what theory behind ISO
15926
> counterintuitiveness and why we need it.
>
> I consider that we need not only "good notation" and "formal semantics",
and
> "logic paradigm" but also a fair amount of documented ontology
commitments in
> an architectural language. I follow intuition of Conrad Bock et al. for
> embedding ontology into architectural language. Also I am not rely on UML
> approach to language (multiple diagrams, attributes) and follow intuition
of
> ArchiMate (http://www.opengroup.org/archimate/doc/ts_archimate/) in
> architectural language definition. By the way, one of three intended
audiences
> of ArchiMate is "The academic community, on which we rely for amending and
> improving the language based on state-of-the-art research results in the
> architecture field".
>
> Why ISO 15926? It has a notion of system right out of the box. While SysML
> have no notion of a system, sorry. I support position of Matthew West in
> discussion about system component. There are many nuances about it in ISO
> 15926 community but all this nuances support engineering intuitions while
> position of ontologists-non-engineers not supporting it. ArchiMate support
> notion of system indirectly, via Services and Interfaces. I need more.
>
> There are many other examples of "formal semantics for bad language = bad
> results", e.g. OWL. But this is another story :-)
>
> Best regards,
> Anatoly
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: henson graves [mailto:henson.graves@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 7:30 AM
> > To: 'Anatoly Levenchuk'; 'Bock, Conrad'; chris.paredis@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > 'David Price'; 'Fredrick A Steiner'; 'Victor Agroskin';
> > Ron_C_Williamson@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'David Leal'; 'Ontology Summit 2012
> > discussion'
> > Cc: 'Matthew West'
> > Subject: RE: INCOSE Ontology Action Group, onto SysML/UML
> >
> > Dear Anatoly,
> > As I understand it you suggesting is that given the deficiencies of
> > the
> UML
> > family languages regarding scaling to business eco-systems one should
> start
> > over. I have to disagree with you; the disagreement is pragmatic.
> > What I see is that UML and SysML while needing improvement have
> > become defacto standards in many engineering domains. This family of
> > languages
> is
> > slowly getting a formal semantics, they have good tool support, and
> > they
> are
> > being used on a wide scale. 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"
> > The difficulty with scaling to eco-systems is not in my opinion a
> language of
> > UML or any other language; is a system engineering methodology defect.
> > One has to develop and enforce some common terminology (ontology?)
> > and some interoperability standards to expect to get consistent
> > integrated architecture. this commonality currently exists in the CAD
> > world and many multinational companies collaborate. Developing some
> > commonality at least where things interface can work for use of UML
> > in an
> eco-system.
> The
> > lack of this kind of hygiene is also responsible for even small
> > projects
> failing.
> >
> > Regards
> > - Henson
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anatoly Levenchuk [mailto:ailev@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:45 PM
> > To: 'Bock, Conrad'; 'henson graves'; chris.paredis@xxxxxxxxxx; 'David
> Price';
> > 'Fredrick A Steiner'; 'Victor Agroskin';
> > Ron_C_Williamson@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'David Leal'
> > Cc: Matthew West
> > Subject: RE: INCOSE Ontology Action Group, onto SysML/UML
> >
> > Conrad,
> > Thank you for pointing me to the right links for your works.
> >
> > I appreciate your ideas about adding ontology to product, behavior
> > and project descriptions languages, especially architecture languages.
> >
> > I know that UML 2 and MOF are a big leap to formal semantics in MDA
> > world.
> > But for me this is not enough to enable UML family languages scaling
> > to business eco-systems (beyond one enterprise). What is an object in
> > one project appears as an attribute in another and vice versa
> > (lessons
> learned
> > from work of EPISTLE consortium). There was extended discussion in
> > ISO
> > 15926 community that build on EPISTLE experience.
> >
> > I carefully see development of ArchiMate as a very successful
> fact-oriented
> > architectural language. There are no attributes in ArchiMate, and
> > still
> they
> > have no formal semantics. Sure, they have almost no ontology
> > features. I think that eventually they will have 1) formal semantics,
> > will add 2)
> ontology
> > features (the two things that you provided with UML and OPML) and
> > continue be 3) fact-oriented. I am wonder how many years 1) and 2)
> > will
> take
> > (I guess no less that this was taken by UML).
> >
> > Personally I try to use ISO 15926 as an engineering ontology, but it
> > is
> not a
> > language because has no good notations. My team is thinking about
> > language workbench (http://www.languageworkbenches.net) supporting
> > multiple engineering DSL on a base of ISO 15926 representation of
> system-of-
> > interest, systems in operational environment and enabling systems.
> > Sure, most of this DSL will be established languages for specialty
> > engineering
> but
> > we still need a good architectural language. Your work on OPML give
> > us inspiration to continue think about fact-oriented variant of such
> > a
> language
> > with strong ontology flavor and still usable by engineers.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Anatoly
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bock, Conrad [mailto:conrad.bock@xxxxxxxx] > Sent:
> > Thursday, February 23, 2012 12:46 AM > To: Anatoly Levenchuk;
> > 'henson graves'; chris.paredis@xxxxxxxxxx; > 'David Price';
> > 'Fredrick A Steiner'; 'Victor Agroskin'; >
> > Ron_C_Williamson@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'David Leal'
> > > Subject: RE: INCOSE Ontology Action Group, onto SysML/UML > >
> > Anatoly, >
> > > > Conrad Bock at al. had papers where they urge for "more ontology
> > > > in product modeling languages" and suggest alternatives like
> > OPML > > (Ontological Product Modeling Language, > >
> > http://www.cesames.net/fichier.php?id=370) that go beyond UML while >
> > > still not fact-oriented.
> > >
> > > Thanks for referring to this, but the link goes to a paper that >
> > should not be > distributed (see its header), are you able to take
> > it down? The distributable > paper is at >
> > http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=822748
> > > and slides at
> > >
> > http://conradbock.org/ontological-product-modeling-short-slides.pdf
> > >
> > > > We found that SysML is not as good to be a basement of overall
> > > MBSE > initiative. We consider many other alternatives that more
> > > fond of > ontology.
> > >
> > > UML 2 introduced significant logical interpretations that are
> > carried over to > SysML. The above paper uses UML. A similar
> > paper on onto behavior > modeling also uses UML
> > (http://dx.doi.org/10.5381/jot.2011.10.1.a3).
> > >
> > > Conrad
>
> (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/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (016)
|