On 3/6/2012 4:10 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:
> On 3/5/2012 3:36 PM, henson graves wrote:
>> 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. (01)
I don't understand why one would do that. SysML is a tool designed for
use by systems engineers, not chemists, and OWL is a language for use by
ontologists and software developers. A more accurate comparison would be
to have them design something 'engineery' in SysML vs SQL or the SysML
meta-model or OWL. Few, if any, systems engineering applications would
present OWL to an engineer as OWL. (02)
> I'm sure that engineers can learn UML or SysML much faster and use it
> more effectively and more accurately than OWL. But since you did the
> experiment, I'd like to hear any further details you observed. Did
> you write a report about them?
>
> And I'd also like to hear the opinions of the engineers about which
> tool(s) they would prefer to use and why. (03)
'Engineers' is far too general a term to answer this question.
Mechanical engineers want to see 3D solid models, EEs want to see
circuit diagrams, stress or thermal engineers want to see colorful
visualizations that highlight problem areas, product
management/maintenance engineers want to see tree-like breakdowns of
products and related processes, chemical engineers want to see compound
structure diagrams, etc. (04)
OWL is just plumbing no discipline engineer would ever see, unless your
discipline happens to be ontology/software engineering and so you're
working directly with the pipes. (05)
>
>> 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.
> I agree. But I would avoid using the term "win out" with respect to any
> particular notation.
>
> As I said before, I believe that semantic systems need to support
> "anything and everything". That would include the Semantic Web tools
> and many different variations of graphic and linear notations. Then
> people with different backgrounds can view the common semantics in
> their preferred notations, and they can use notations that are tailored
> to their requirements. (06)
Exactly! Users of an onotology-based application, be it based in OWL or
HOL, would likely never have that fact made visible to them. We should
remember that ontologies are the tail, not the dog, and the goal is to
provide a way for software projects to produce better, more semantically
accurate applications. It's the applications that typically bring
business value though, not the ontology. (07)
Cheers,
David (08)
>
> John
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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)
--
Managing Director and Consultant
TopQuadrant Limited. Registered in England No. 05614307
UK +44 7788 561308
US +1 336-283-0606 (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (011)
|