Hi All, (01)
I've only read through some of the dialog, but want to point out a
couple of things that may
be useful to consider. (02)
With respect to a formal semantics for UML, a number of us who have been
working on the
Ontology Definition Metamodel (ODM -- see http://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/
for the older
version, replacement in work that improves upon the metamodels and
profiles for RDF
and OWL and supports OWL 2) have struggled with this for years. We have
largely ignored
UML composition and aggregation, and where needed for transforming UML
models to OWL
have created annotation properties to represent these concepts rather
than mapping them
to mereological relations such as whole-part. We do care to preserve
the dependency information
inherent in the UML, in other words, but have not yet published a formal
ontology that reflects
the intended semantics. It's something that a number of us have been
thinking about, though,
so that we can create transformations in both directions -- from UML
models that use these
constructs to DL or FOL, and from a formal ontology of mereology to a
reasonable
representation using the ODM/OWL or ODM/CL stereotypes and graphical
notation. Conrad
Bock may have written a paper that talks about this, but I don't have
the link at my fingertips. (03)
Regarding a formal semantics for at least a subset of UML, JPL in
particular has done a
great deal of work in this area that may be relevant. They map SysML
models to OWL, use
reasoning to check model consistency, ensure that they are also
executable in FOL using the
"Semantics of a Foundational Subset for Executable UML Models (FUML)"
specification, (available
at http://www.omg.org/spec/FUML/) and custom software they've written in
Alloy, and transform
them back, corrected as needed, as a part of their overall model quality
assurance process. There
may be presentations available from past OMG technical meetings on the
Systems Engineering
meeting hub page, so Henson if you have a chance to poke around or ask
Nicolas or possibly
Sandy for links to any that have been made public, that might be helpful
to this audience. (04)
Thirdly, there is a small company in Ireland called Nomos, who have
developed a set of OCL tools,
including an OCL compiler of sorts, for execution of rules over models,
again to support quality
assurance, among other things. Their CEO will be at the OMG meeting in
Reston, VA later this
month, and can provide more detail on their capabilities and appropriate
applications. While
OCL is only a constraint language, and Pat Hayes and I found that
variable scope handling in OCL
was not what we anticipated from a CL perspective, there is something to
be said for taking a
hard look at this and what Nomos has done in support of better alignment
between UML+OCL
and FOL. To my knowledge, no one has taken a hard look at comparing the
results of SysML
model interpretation, using only the executable subset of UML, as
identified in fUML, with
SysML stereotypes plus OCL supported by the Nomos technology, with a
transformation of the
same model to OWL plus rules, and performing analysis using a hybrid
reasoning approach that
combines OWL DL reasoning and decision support tools. Again, JPL has
done more along these
lines than others to my knowledge, but I would be really delighted to
hear that others are
doing this as well. It's really important work given the broad usage of
SysML in aerospace,
automotive, and large scale manufacturing, and such experiments could
also broaden the
practical usage of OWL and rule-based reasoning in those and other domains. (05)
My two cents :), (06)
Elisa (07)
On 3/3/2012 5:32 AM, henson graves wrote:
> Dear Matthew, Chris, and others,
> My point is not really about whether parthood is strict or not. I agree
> that the classical mereological are a good place to start, but Matthew's
> example requires extension of classical theories, none of the classical
> mereologists participating here have been part of the dialog.
> - Henson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Partridge [mailto:partridge.csj@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 3:16 AM
> 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'
> Subject: RE: INCOSE Ontology Action Group, onto SysML/UML
>
> Hi Henson,
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Chris
>
>> -----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_programm
>>>> in
>>>> 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=822
>>>>> 74
>>>>> 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)
|