Hi Henson, (01)
I agree that intuitively we tend to think of part as strict-part (i.e.
things are not part of themselves).
Most systems of mereology have both - one can usually be defined in terms of
the other. (02)
I know that in 4D ontologies it is very useful to have (non-strict) part as
you often do not want to have to differentiate between a state that
something has for part of its life and something it has for the whole of its
life - legal gender would be a useful example. Then usefulness trumps
untutored intuition - or, I should say, updates it. I guess there are 3D
examples, but none spring to mind this early in the morning. (03)
Chris (04)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: henson graves [mailto:henson.graves@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> 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: 'Matthew West'; 'Chris Partridge'
> Subject: RE: 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
> > >
> >
> (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)
|