Dear Henson, (01)
Yes, for those with an engineering background classical mereology, which
allows an object to be a part of itself, can seem strange. (02)
I have spent quite a lot of time looking at mereology, and what I can say is
that classical mereology is an elegant theory, and trying to insist on
proper parts gives theories that are significantly less elegant. So I would
be inclined to use classical mereology as a foundation, and layer something
on top to cover proper parts. (03)
Actually of course, classical mereology is not adequate to cover parthood
change over time for 3D ontologies, but is sufficient for 4D ontologies. (04)
Regards (05)
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/ (06)
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. (07)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of henson graves
> Sent: 03 March 2012 00:45
> To: 'Chris Partridge'; '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: 'Chris Partridge'; 'Matthew West'
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] INCOSE Ontology Action Group, onto
SysML/UML
>
> Chris,
> The good thing is that we can get this clarified at least. I have a lot to
say
> on this even though I do not know what the spec says. What I can say is
that
> what UML has can be built on to achieve a proper Part Ontology in my
opinion.
> My views as to what is a proper formalization of parts is somewhat
different
> from what I read in the mereology literature. I know this takes argument
on
> many fronts. I personally disapprove of individuals being in a part
> relationship with themselves. I would not attempt to bring down a
government
> on this issue, but it is what I think, and I have had a lot of dealing
with
> part-whole relationships.
> Henson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Partridge [mailto:partridge.csj@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 4:01 PM
> To: 'henson graves'; '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'; 'Chris Partridge'
> Subject: RE: INCOSE Ontology Action Group, onto SysML/UML
>
> Hi Henson,
>
> There is one point I'd like to reply to.
>
> You say:
> > Ontological commitment to Parts: UML has a Part construction which
> > while having an incomplete semantics is founded on good engineering
> practice.
>
> I see this comment a lot and I think people are assuming it must be the
case
> without checking the specification.
> I must admit I made the same assumption until, for my sins, I had to wade
> through the UML specification in detail.
> As far as I can tell the (formal) constraint on aggregation and
composition
> relations is that the life of the part must be contained in the life of
the
> whole - or that the part can only exist when the whole does.
> This seems more closely aligned with a form of ontological (temporal)
> dependence than mereology.
> I know that people doing OO analysis use UML aggregation / composition to
> represent whole-part relations, but the formal constraints in the
> specification do not support this interpretation - and they certainly do
not
> give much of an idea what the intended interpretation is.
> Programmers tell me that they use UML aggregation / composition to show
this
> kind of temporal dependence between classes - which ties in well with the
> formal constraints. Others (e.g. Martin Fowler) say it is too confusing
and
> suggest not using it.
>
> I wonder whether anyone else has had doubts about this really having
anything
> to with mereology.
>
> You also said:
> > but implementations enforce some of
> > the ontological properties that one would expect of parts, e.g. a part
> relation
> > cannot be to itself.
>
> Only if it is strict whole-part - normally whole-part is reflexive.
>
> All this makes me wonder whether the formal semantics given for UML is
> something of a re-interpretation.
> Of course there is nothing stopping one re-interpreting UML aggregation /
> composition as whole-part, but this is a different ball game.
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: henson graves [mailto:henson.graves@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 02 March 2012 19:57
> > To: 'Chris Partridge'; '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'; 'Chris Partridge'
> > Subject: RE: INCOSE Ontology Action Group, onto SysML/UML
> >
> > Chris,
> > No problem with coming to the dialog late. I have attempted to sort
> > out
> what
> > you have added; I see the following:
> >
> > CP: My view is that UML (as per its specification) belongs in the same
> camp as
> > COBOL - that is not to condemn it, merely to classify it. My question
> would be
> > whether UML (or add your candidate here) has demonstrated any ability
> > to clearly show its ontological commitments. I guess Cory would have
> > made
> the
> > same point about UMLs shortcomings as this has been discussed
> > extensively
> in
> > his workgroup. BTW That is not to say that one cannot use UML
> > diagramming to do (for example) ISO 15926 modelling. We also use UML
> > diagrams for
> IDEAS.
> > I guess a lot of people do the same thing. I'd be very surprised if
> > you
> were able
> > to point to anything to do with ontology that contributed to UML
> > success (which its predecessor did not have) - and enjoy being
> > surprised. I'd be
> merely
> > interested in the mathematical points.
> >
> > HG: Here is a partial response to your question of what UML got right,
> > why
> it is
> > not in the COBOL camp, and some notes on why OWL 2 is totally
> > inadequate
> as
> > a formal semantics for UML or ISO 15926. More will follow as I process
> recent
> > posts. By the way I can see an emerging panel discussion which takes
> > Matthew's distillation unit as a starting point for discussion of how
> > to
> represent
> > in various modeling languages and what ontology commitment needed.
> > While the example is simple the issues are fundamental from the
> > ontology point
> of
> > view and their solution or lack of solution will have serious impact
> > on
> modeling
> > language development and how they deal with ontology. There are a
> > number of participants who understand the issues well.
> > My biggest disappointment is that the professional ontologists have
> > been absent from this discussion.
> >
> > Formal Semantics: UML can be given a formal semantics for its
> > individuals, classes, and properties in that class models can be
> > embedded into a
> reasonable
> > Description Logic ( Berardi, D., Calvanese, D., and De Giacomoa, G.
2005.
> > "Reasoning on UML class diagrams."). I also have papers embedding
> > larger fragments of SysML into type theory. Type theory includes DL
> > constructions
> and
> > can accommodate 4D semantics. Embedding in logic is critical in the
> > long
> run
> > for collaboration, standards, and reasoning. I understand engineering
> languages
> > have not born that way and it takes a while to what their semantics
> > should
> be
> > or if they are so damaged that cannot be given a reasonable semantics.
> >
> > Ontological commitment to Parts: UML has a Part construction which
> > while having an incomplete semantics is founded on good engineering
> practice.
> > Parts are represented not as individuals, but as binary relations.
> > This
> means
> > that part instances are pairs of individuals, e.g., <a,b>:R where R is
> > a
> part
> > relation. The part arrows in a diagram translate into a typed binary
> relation. I
> > will write as write as R(A,B) for an arrow A -<>B in a diagram.
> > If you unwind the diagrams composition of relations is used. Even in
> > UML family the diamond headed arrow has additional ontological
> > semantics. I do not know about the formal specification but
> > implementations enforce some
> of
> > the ontological properties that one would expect of parts, e.g. a part
> relation
> > cannot be to itself. Also while UML does not have the concept a
> functional
> > relation R(A,B) can be replaced or identified with an operation R^:A ->
B.
> I
> > believe that this is what is needed in many places including Matthew's
> > distillation unit example.
> >
> > Metamodeling facility: As several of us have noted a weak ontological
> > commitment is better than one that is simply wrong. However, UML does
> > provide a facility in which one can specify ontological semantics with
> > the
> meta-
> > modeling facility. Conrad's papers correctly employ that tactic.
> > Again there are improvements to be made there, but it lets groups
> > specify
> an
> > ontological concept such as "system" as a meta-model class.
> >
> > Here are some notes on why I believe that OWL 2 is totally inadequate
> > for engineering modeling languages. I think OWL 2 is a major
> > accomplishment
> and
> > my comments do not demean it in any way. When I say that I mean that
> > the language constructions in UML beyond classes and properties extend
> > the expressiveness of OWL 2. This does not mean that they could not be
> > encoded
> in
> > OWL 2 but only in the same sense that they could be encoded as a
> > Turing Machine tape.
> >
> > If the professional ontologists talk about this kind of stuff or are
> interested in it
> > I hope someone will point me to what they have to say about for
> > example, impact of choice of logical formalism on identify, time, and
> > other such concepts, and on ontology typed part relations, on
> > replacing functional relations with Skolem functions which enables
> > treating a part more like an individual, etc.
> >
> > - Henson
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Partridge [mailto:partridge.csj@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 3:12 PM
> > To: 'henson graves'; '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'; 'Chris Partridge'
> > Subject: RE: INCOSE Ontology Action Group, onto SysML/UML
> >
> > Hi Henson,
> >
> > It sounds as if you have had a lively discussion, and my comments
> > might
> not be
> > to the point as I was not involved.
> > I guess this is an apology in advance.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: henson graves [mailto:henson.graves@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: 01 March 2012 20:51
> > > 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'; 'Chris Partridge'
> > > Subject: RE: INCOSE Ontology Action Group, onto SysML/UML
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Anatoly,
> > > You say that a plan future (for engineering modeling languages) on a
> > > base
> > of
> > > current "de facto" legacy is not good even if we label it as a
> > > pragmatic argument. To suggest that my argument for building on UML
> > > is equivalent
> > to
> > > arguing for building on COBOL is nonsense; you either misconstrue or
> > > misunderstand what I am saying.
> > >
> > > I am saying the UML family satisfies specific criteria that enable
> > > one
> to
> > > evolve it rather than starting over with something new. If COBOL had
> the
> > > demonstrated capability to be used to design a submarine by a
> > multinational
> > > enterprise, had good graphics notation, had scalable tools, and had
> > > a
> > formal
> > > logic-based semantics then COBOL would meet the criteria that we
> > > both appear to believe necessary. I would be the first one to
> > > suggest be used
> > as the
> > > basis for the future.
> >
> > I guess I am with Anatoly here. My view is that UML (as per its
> > specification) belongs in the same camp as COBOL - that is not to
> > condemn
> it,
> > merely to classify it.
> > My question would be whether UML (or add your candidate here) has
> > demonstrated any ability to clearly show its ontological commitments.
> > I guess Cory would have made the same point about UMLs shortcomings as
> this
> > has been discussed extensively in his workgroup.
> > BTW That is not to say that one cannot use UML diagramming to do (for
> > example) ISO 15926 modelling. We also use UML diagrams for IDEAS. I
> > guess
> a
> > lot of people do the same thing.
> >
> > >
> > > Where to begin: It is always easy to say throw out the old and
> > > bring the
> > new.
> >
> > My motto is a bit different - it is to try and salvage all that is
> > good in
> the old
> > and migrate it to the new.
> >
> > > Indeed sometimes this is the way to go. For this to make sense one
> > > should articulate where the old is insufficient, what is better, and
> > > why the old
> > cannot
> > > be evolved to the new.
> >
> > Agreed - absolutely. I have two projects where we are doing exactly
> > that
> wrt
> > UML.
> >
> > >People always use tools (which include
> > > languages) on the one hand as a magic bullet, and on the other hand
> > >as something to blame when things go badly. You state that one needs
> > >a good notation, a formal semantics and a logic paradigm and a fair
> > >amount of ontology commitments. I agree, but to be clear when I say
> > >formal semantics
> > I
> > > mean logic-based semantics.
> >
> > logic-based semantics? What had you in mind? And how do you get from
> > there to the intended interpretation?
> >
> > >There are other factors that have to do with success such as
> > >acceptance factors.
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I'd be very surprised if you were able to point to anything to do with
> ontology
> > that contributed to UML success (which its predecessor did not
> > have) - and enjoy being surprised. I'd be merely interested in the
> mathematical
> > points.
> >
> > >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.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Ontological Commitment: We all want ontological commitment, but to
> > what?
> > > Without a pretty firm understanding of the logic requirements,
> > > ontology commitments can hardly go beyond terminology. Even
> > > terminology seems to be difficult. Incorrect ontological commitment
> > > (in the sense of Nicola) is
> > very
> > > dangerous. In my opinion it is better to have a language with weak
> > ontological
> > > commitment with a facility to make the ontological commitment
> extensible.
> > > As we are aware UML has only very slight ontological commitment
> > > beyond basic class and property language constructions. It does at
> > > least have a
> > concept
> > > of "part" which represents an ontological commitment.
> > > Conrad's approach to integration of ontology with modeling languages
> > > using the OMG MOF framework allows us to start with a modeling
> > > language family
> > > (UML) and add ontology patterns as they become sufficiently stable.
> > Conrad
> > > points out that UML as spec'd has open semantics, even though many
> > interpret
> > > it as closed. To me the ability to specify meta-level semantics for
> > > use
> > in
> > > building models is the essence of a language's openness. I do not
> > > know for
> > sure
> > > if this is the way that Conrad is using the term. As noted UML's
> > ontological
> > > commitment is weak, this is a good thing for getting things right in
> > > the
> > future.
> > >
> > > Modeling-in-the large: You note that one needs a language for
> > > architecting
> > and
> > > modeling-in-the-large, where one assembles architectural work of
> > > many people. I certainly agree. As I have stated before my opinion
> > > is that
> > solving the
> > > in-the-large problem is more a methodology issue than a language
defect.
> > > Conrad also points out that a language with open semantics is
> > > important
> > for
> > > assembling work of many people; in that sense a language with open
> > semantics
> > > is better suited for "in the large" than others. I have a lot of
> > > direct
> > experience
> > > with UML and SysML both failing and succeeding on large
> > > multi-company and multi-national product development programs. It is
> > > not really too hard to understand what caused the failures, but they
> > > were not primarily defect
> > with
> > > the modeling language, even though they have defects. Specifically
> > > I have
> > used
> > > UML to represent the design for an information system that federated
> > multiple
> > > large legacy systems. The UML model contained both a user level
> > > ontology
> > and
> > > the transformations between that and the legacy system's interface.
> > > Many legacy systems have a web-services interface which enables
> > > interface
> > without
> > > any code on the legacy systems being changed.
> > >
> > > Acceptance Factors: Large enterprises almost always correctly make
> > > fairly conservative choices regarding tools and methodology. They
> > > correctly do
> > not
> > > want to add to whatever risk they already incur. This is one place
> > > where I
> > agree
> > > with the sentiment that sociology and politics, and global warming
> > > or its absence all plays a part in the success or failure of
> > > engineering
> > efforts.
> > I do not
> > > believe, however that these aspects are necessary for a
> > > specification
> > which
> > > tells what to build as opposed to why one wants to build something.
> > >
> > > 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?
> > > 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_programmin
> > > g_
> > > 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=82274
> > > > 8
> > > > > and slides at
> > > > >
> > > > http://conradbock.org/ontological-product-modeling-short-slides.pd
> > > > f
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/ (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)
|