John,
It appears that you and I are in general agreement. This is not surprising
as my academic background is mathematics and logic. I also have some 30
years of attempting tech transfer in industry with mixed results. I agree
generally with your points:
1. formal semantics independent of syntax, but note that formal syntax
independent of concrete semantics is relatively easy in this day and age,
but formal semantics is a bit harder.
2. Open ended controlled notations, as long as they are formal
3. Options to specialize semantics, particularly by using extensible
ontology.
4. Meta-levels are extremely useful for specification of syntax and
semantics (01)
As you indicate I too believe that UML is a good point of departure. To
suggest that starting with UML is equivalent to starting with FORTRAN and
COBOL is a misunderstanding of your points, and mine. As you know fragments
of UML have been embedded in Description Logic and in type theory. This
gives credence that UML makes a good starting point if one wants a formal
semantics. One point that might be missed is the formal semantics accords
closely with the informal UML semantics. I personally have tasked two
engineers with similar capability to build a model of the molecule Water in
SysML and in OWL. Take a guess about the results. Also guess how well it can
be done in either of these languages or other candidates. I personally am
convinced that HOL in the form of type theory will eventually win out, but
this is pretty much irrelevant to putting a stake in the ground with respect
to achieving tech transfer. As you have stated start wherever you want, as
long as where you start can be given a formal semantics (02)
- Henson (03)
-----Original Message-----
From: henson graves [mailto:henson.graves@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 7:33 AM
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'
Subject: RE: INCOSE Ontology Action Group, onto SysML/UML (04)
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 (05)
-----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 (06)
Hi Henson, (07)
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. (08)
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. (09)
Chris (010)
> -----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
> > >
> >
> (011)
--- Begin Message ---
David and Anatoly, (01)
Since I grew up as a mathematician, I strongly support formal
semantics. But I also worked at IBM on both sides of the R & D
fence, and I realize that *technology transfer* from R to D has
always been a huge problem. Both sides make nasty comments about
the "clueless" people on the other side. Unfortunately, their
criticisms of each other are usually correct. (02)
DP
> I am suggesting that the quickest way for
> semantics/ontology to have the broadest impact is to build for the Web
> first. My point is about things taking decades, which is why I mentioned
> the Semantic Web activity as having energized far more people in the
> past 10 years than anything else. Organizations also get a lot for free
> by starting with a Web-based approach (e.g. universal identifiers with a
> well-understood approach they already understand). (03)
I agree that URIs are useful. But I believe that the Semantic Web would
have been integrated with mainstream IT from Day 1 *if* they had started
with UML diagrams as the human interface and supported *both* RDBs and
web-based data. See the note below from another thread. (04)
DP
> Do a small experiment - Walk into IT depts in companies in agri, bio,
> pharma, defense, mfg, and oil and gas and ask people if they've heard of
> 'ontology' or 'semantics' - most will say no. Of those that answer yes,
> ask them if they have any interest in that subject in their company -
> again, most will say no... (05)
Precisely! But they certainly know UML, which is sufficient to specify
the semantics of the overwhelming number of OWL ontologies published
on the WWW. UML is the *sweet spot* for specifying the semantics of
*both* mainstream IT *and* the data on the WWW. (06)
DP
> Alternative summary: 1) IT is moving more and more towards a set of
> competing platforms. Apple, for example, certainly completely disagrees
> with your assessment. 2) Of the available set of candidate platforms,
> the Internet/Web will be the most long-lived and have the broadest
> impact so choosing that gets the biggest bang for the proverbial buck. (07)
I agree. That is why I recommend UML + controlled natural languages
as the human interface for all the above systems and with formal logic
to define the semantics of all the notations. See the note below. (08)
AL
> 1. Formal semantics. This is necessary but not sufficient. This
> is machine code, only the most brave people in the world create
> on this level, Titans and Heroes. (09)
But I would state the formal semantics in an abstract syntax that
is totally independent of any concrete notation, linear or graphic.
Anybody should be able to use a formally defined language in whatever
notation they prefer. The computer could automatically translate
any notation to any other notation that anybody might prefer. (010)
AL
> Long live Fortran and UML! But, please, live not with me.
> There exist other paradigm languages. (011)
I agree that UML wasn't originally specified precisely, but it can
be mapped to whatever abstract syntax is used for the formal semantics.
For ontology, the two most important UML diagrams are type hierarchies
and E-R diagrams (AKA signatures). Type hierarchies are a variant of
the Tree of Porphyry, which has been used to teach Aristotle's logic
and categories for over 1700 years. E-R diagrams (signatures) are
just as formal. Programmers happily use with both of them. (012)
AL
> 2. Low level language to integrate all (like Assembler: it has low
> expressivity but multiple paradigm languages compiled to this language). (013)
Actually, assembler is the *most* expressive language on any computer.
The reason why it's unreadable is that it maps each high-level statement
to a large number of low-level operations. In fact, I would say that
predicate calculus is the assembler language for ontology. (014)
AL
> 3. Macro assembler or/and subroutines. I want not program in Turing
Machine
> language, even in Logic Turing Machine. I want go high. (015)
I agree. But there is no single language that is ideal for all kinds
of applications. So I would support any notation that anybody prefers,
as long as it has a precisely defined mapping to the formal semantics. (016)
As one option, I recommend controlled natural languages, which can be
used just as precisely as any other notation for logic. In particular,
UML has a version of FOL with a notation called OCL, which is equally
repugnant to both programmers and logicians. I would replace OCL
with controlled NLs -- controlled English, Russian, Chinese, etc. (017)
AL
> 4. But macroassembler is still assembler, I need more. There we have
objects
> that is en essence part of semantic network with defined interface. (018)
That introduces some built-in ontology to the language. That is good,
but there is no single ontology that is ideal for all purposes. I
would make these additions optional, but we can recommend some basic
ontology that is widely used. For example, numbers, time, space, etc. (019)
AL
> 5. We need language for mapping all alien's visions of the world to our's.
> I believe that this mapping should be in HOL only and therefore better
> performed in Turing Complete language. (020)
I agree with the principle. But many details need to be discussed. (021)
AL
> 6. I have as a good example of architectural language not SysML but
> ArchiMate (http://www.opengroup.org/archimate/doc/ts_archimate/ -- this
> is 1.0 specification, now we have 2.0 that is even better... (022)
That's a good example, but many details need to be discussed further. (023)
AL
> 7. Then we can have a bunch of engineering DSL languages eco-system by
> supporting translation of... (024)
That's a good list. (025)
The points I would emphasize are (1) formal semantics defined in a way
that is independent of any concrete syntax; (2) an open-ended variety
of graphic, linear, and/or controlled NL notations that are specified
by a formal mapping to the semantics; (3) the option of specializing
any notation(s) with appropriate built-in ontology; and (4) metalevel
notations for defining and relating all these languages. (026)
Following is a note I wrote to another email list. It adds some detail
about UML and other issues related to the Semantic Web. (027)
John (028)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [CG:] Semantic Systems
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 09:11:26 -0500
From: John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: cg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (029)
Danny, (030)
I want to emphasize that I'm not arguing against using the Semantic Web
notations and tools when they are useful. I also realize that there
are much more readable (and efficient) notations for RDF than RDF/XML. (031)
> I'm not sure there can be a Holy Grail, but (if you'll excuse my wooly
> logic) I agree 100% with the need for interoperability. (032)
That is the most important point I wanted to get across. (033)
> But it is a layered system - if you don't like OWL, don't use it,
> build on lower layers. (Q. Why would you want to build on any of this?
> A. to take advantage of the Web)
> RDF itself (triples) is little more than a syntax for expressing
> predicates (triples!) with URI-based naming. It doesn't really say
> anything about how those predicates should be interpreted. (034)
I also agree with those points. But my major complaint is that the
W3C started by ignoring everything else. When they developed those
notations, nearly every commercial web site was built around a
relational DB. The big guys used Oracle or DB2, and the smaller
sites used LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, and Perl, Python or PHP).
In fact, they still do. (035)
If the W3C had paid equal attention to both kinds of data, they could
have promoted interoperability from Day 1. (036)
> I've not used them myself, but there are mappings between OWL and UML
> and some recent publications describe mappings between between
> SQL-based relational DBs and RDF [1]. (037)
Re OWL and UML: If you look at the OWL ontologies published on the
WWW, the overwhelming majority of them don't use anything beyond
what you can represent with UML diagrams. If the W3C had adopted
UML as their primary notation for humans, the SW would have been
fully integrated with mainstream IT from the beginning. In fact,
both sides would have benefited enormously -- and they still can. (038)
As for RDBs, Ted Codd was proposing a type system for SQL back in
the 1970s. The VLDB conferences proposed many very good upgrades
for SQL, but ISO faced two major obstacles: Oracle and IBM. (039)
The W3C had a chance to develop a good type system that could
be used with *both* SQL and the web data. Instead, their notion
of interoperability is to migrate RDBs to RDF. (040)
But people *never* migrate old software. They run the old software
forever, and they want to run it concurrently with the new software.
Note that you can still run VAX emulators on Windows, Linux, and Mac.
You can even run the PDP1 emulator on your VAX emulator on any of
the above. But it's more efficient to use the Java emulator for
the PDP1. (People do that to play the old Spacewar game.) (041)
> I agree 100% with your implication that there is a lot of untapped
> potential around Semantic Systems
> For example trust and provenance are still fairly open questions, and
> while the W3C's recent provenance data model [4] makes a lot of sense,
> my gut feeling is that to use this kind of thing in practice requires
> some input from those /other/ Semantic Systems. (042)
On that point, we completely agree. (043)
John
_______________________________________________________________________ (044)
Copy of the URLs from Danny's previous note: (045)
[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/
[2] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
[3] http://richard.cyganiak.de/2007/10/lod/
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/ (046)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/ (047)
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/ (048)
--- End Message ---
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (01)
|