On Sat, February 1, 2014 03:50, Matthew West wrote:
> Ed B. wrote:
> > The problem I have with the 4D model in Part 2 is exactly what you
> > describe: (01)
> > - theWholeLifeIndividual is a partially ordered set of states (temporal
> > parts). This allows different sequences of states to exist in different
> > views. (02)
> > So, what is important is HOW (and whether) spatio-temporal
> > coordinates are used in identifying the states and the MEANINGS of the
> > states themselves. (03)
> [MW>] It is not so much the state itself, but what you say about it that
> is important. The state is just a coat hanger to give context. (04)
This seems to me to be the key. (05)
The utility of having 4D pieces of a 4D whole life individual is to have a
useful way
to specify the context for an assertion. (06)
This suggests to me that if one has an alternate way to specify the
context, that
it would be just as useful. (07)
I have for the last (at least) 17 years considered 4D and 3D+1 methods of
modelling
equally useful and seen no reason to favor one over the other. I've been
a little
irritated by the theological debate over which is correct/better.
Personally, i've preferred
using and creating 3D+1 models but have been happy with either. (08)
For example, if an assertion is asserted with its context attached (e.g.,
within a
microtheory) it can only be obtained by accessing the context. An alternate
method would be to store assertions using arity N predicates that are true in
a specific context as in an arity N+1 form with the last argument being the
context. (09)
The whole idea of a web of data expressed in triples has seemed dangerous
to me
because raw triples can be retrieved without context. While at DERI, i
argued for
quad stores instead of triple stores to allow for the context of every
assertion to
be maintained. Such context would include provenance and IP info as well the
spatio-temporal (and universe) constraints of the assertion. (010)
Given that the Web of Data is being promulgated with raw triples flying
around
without context, a system that forces such triples to include context can
be very useful. (011)
For example,
(holdsIn (TimeIntervalBetweenFn Noon20January2009 Noon20January2017)
(presidentOf BarackObama UnitedStatesOfAmerica))
contains the raw triple
(presidentOf BarackObama UnitedStatesOfAmerica)
however
(presidentOf BarackObama UnitedStatesOfAmerica Context0572707)
(with the time interval included in the context) uses a quad so that there
is no such uncontexted tuple. (012)
The 4D formulation also gives us a context that won't disappear:
(presidentOf
(TimeSliceOfFn BarackObama
(TimeIntervalBetweenFn Noon20January2009 Noon20January2017))
(TimeSliceOfFn UnitedStatesOfAmerica
(TimeIntervalBetweenFn Noon20January2009 Noon20January2017)))
however it does so using triples -- (013)
So it seems to me that for RDF users who want to use a web of data, that
there is a definite advantage in 4D representation -- that of contexts
that do
disappear. (014)
> ...
> > What we really want from Part 2 is that the modeler is aware that
PumpState
> > is an important concept, and that it has the isTemporalPartOf property
with
> > the range restricted to Pump, and that many of the dynamic properties we
> > assign to a Pump are properly assigned to a PumpState. (015)
... (016)
> But it is in fact quite likely that PumpState is called "pump data sheet",
> which has a date, a related Pump (the IsTemporalPartOf relation), and a
> set of measured properties. We want to enforce the discipline here, but
how
> far that extends into the model structure and the model nomenclature is
quite
> another thing entirely. (017)
The difference between the timestamped PumpDataSheet and the PumpState is
that additional conclusions can be made about the PumpState and these may
include relations that are not included in the PumbDataSheet. E.g., if
there has
been a recall, the specific run of the specific factory upon which the
pump was
assembled may become important. This may not be on the PumpDataSheet,
but may be determinable from the serial number which is on the PumpDataSheet
and is part of the PumpState. (018)
> > BTW, you wrote:
> > > "A design is the specification of one or more possible individuals,
and as
> > > such is a class, so does not have temporal parts." (019)
> > I also agree that the specification part of a design (element) is a
class,
> > but the design (element) itself is a thing, not a class, because it can
> > change. (020)
Agreed. A specification is a conceptual work that describes a class.
Specifications
develop and change with the result being different versions of the
conceptual work
that describe similar, but not identical classes. (021)
> > And, as you know, I find the idea that a class can have members that are
> > 'possible individuals' to be ontologically annoying and unnecessary (022)
> [MW>] Why? How else do you propose to deal with project plans and other
> things you intend to bring about in the future? (023)
They would be actual individuals in the context of the prototype/plan.
The problem
here seems to be the labeling of these individuals as "possible". In
this case, what
is being referred to is a 5D worm, since it is wandering off into contexts
which are
not merely spatio-temporally distinct, but could be considered different
possible
worlds. (024)
Perchance if they are labelled by the plan/prototype (or whatever) instead
of by
the term "possible" this would cease to be an issue. (025)
> > , particularly, since Part 2 treats "class" as intensional (the
predicate)
> > rather than extensional (the set of things in the UoD that satisfy the
> > predicate). (026)
> [MW>] It is a little more nuanced than that. In Part 2 a class is
> extensional in that it is defined by its membership and its membership does
> not change over time. However, we allow that you do not necessarily know,
> care, or record all the members of the class. So it is also quite
> appropriate to have intentional definitions to identify members when you
> discover them and they are of interest. (027)
You also don't know all possible plans and prototypical plants which might
contain members (they are infinite, after all). If there is a fixed set of
members, it must include all such members. As long as you can specify
the (possible world of) their context, such members need not be treated
any differently than any other other member. (028)
> > I do agree that modelers need some guidance on the formal
representation of
> > the concept of 'ordering a battery'. Perhaps ordering a possible
battery is
> > better than ordering from a class of battery. I prefer the idea that one
> > orders from a catalog entry, which is associated with a class of product.
> > Again, this separates the object (catalog entry) from the class. But you
> > still need the idea: (associatedWith catalogEntry Class), which puts the
> > Class in the UoD. But none of this is in Part 2, so we order 'possible
> > batteries'. (029)
This is the sort of issue that comes up when classes are not allowed to be
arguments to predicates. (030)
One way to look at is that you are ordering copies of a prototype
individual of the class.
All relations then deal with individuals. (031)
-- doug foxvog (032)
> [MW>] Of course there is work to do. What you are supposed to work out is
> that a catalog entry (product model) is a class that you want some number
> (aggregate) of possible individuals that are members of that class. Again,
> the detail (battery, order) is in the RDL. What you get in Part 2 is the
> data model for activity and class of activity which give you the structures
> you need to drive with the RDL data, and probably develop appropriate
> templates for.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Matthew West
>
> Information Junction
>
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
>
> Skype: dr.matthew.west
>
> <mailto:matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> <http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/>
> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
>
> <https://www.matthew-west.org.uk/> https://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
> and Wales No. 6632177.
>
> Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City,
> Hertfordshire,
> SG6 2SU.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Ed
>
>
>
>
>
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew
> West
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 4:55 AM
> To: 'Ontology Summit 2014 discussion'
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] The tools are not the problem (yet)
>
>
>
> Dear Ed,
>
>
>
>
>
> OK. We are getting somewhere.
>
> [MW2>] Good.
>
> Comments labeled below.
>
>
>
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew
> West
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 8:48 AM
> To: 'Ontology Summit 2014 discussion'
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] The tools are not the problem (yet)
>
>
>
> Dear David,
>
>
>
> Hi Ed and Matthew,
>
>
>
> A view from the peanut gallery (i.e. the bowels of projects trying to
> implement a second, and third 15926-based data integration repository) ...
>
>
>
> The core of Part 2 is really a modeling language or at best an upper
> ontology with a particular set of commitments.
>
> [MW>] I would say it is both of those.
>
>
>
> [EJB] Yes, I think at heart Part 2 is some of the semantics for a
> Knowledge
> Representation Language, in that it makes a set of fundamental ontological
> commitments and provides language terms for those concepts. I say 'some
> of
> the semantics' because the 'templates' in Part 4 represent a set of
> standard
> verbs that can be used to construct sentences involving domain-defined
> nouns. So, the rest of the KR language -- the sentence syntax and the
> semantics of those formation elements - is defined in the templates.
>
>
>
> That is why people like Ed say it's not an ontology in the everyday sense
> of
> the word. Part 2 is more like the W3C OWL standard itself than the W3C
> Provenance Ontology, for example. So, I see Part 2 is a modeling language
> that can be the basis for an ontology for process plants held as instances
> of Part 2.
>
> [MW>] Agreed, but a 4D ontology of process plants.
>
>
>
> [EJB] I think, and I have said, that the 4D-ness is overworked in the
> template language. The idea that a WholeLifeIndividual can be a sequence
>
> [MW2>] It does not have to be a sequence, they can be overlapping.
>
> of interesting Temporal Parts is useful, but a given industrial ontology
> has
> to identify how interesting states that are the TemporalParts are
> distinguished, for each class, and how they differ from arbitrary changes
> of
> state.
>
> [MW2>] They are distinguished by their spatio-temporal extent. It does not
> matter what class they are. A state may be a member of more than one class
> of course.
>
> In so many words, you have to say what you mean by a 'state'/TemporalPart
> and its own persistence.
>
> [MW2>] I think I just did. They are really very simple. You can have (in
> principle) any spatio-temporal extent you like. In practice, the
> interesting
> ones are whole-life individuals, and states (temporal parts) of them. You
> choose which ones are interesting. They may overlap, or not. A state is
> interesting generally when we want to make a statement about it which is
> true for all of that state (both spatially and temporally). So if we
> identify a state of a door that is open, we mean that all of the door
> (consider a stable door if you like) is open all for the time for that
> state.
>
> The nature of state in the process fluid differs from the nature of state
> in
> the equipment lifecycle, which also differs from the nature of 'state' in
> a
> versioned design specification.
>
> [MW2>] I beg to differ. You might want to say different things about a
> state
> if it is a fluid, but the state itself is exactly the same thing - a
> spatio-temporal extent that is a temporal part of some whole-life
> individual. I have no idea what you mean by a 'state' in a versioned
> design
> specification. A design is the specification of one or more possible
> individuals, and as such is a class, so does not have temporal parts. If
> you
> have a project that develops a design for a process plant, then you have
> one
> (or possibly more) possible process plant with start date in the future
> that
> is a member of the class that is the design specification. Classes are
> universal, so do not change, so do not have states. They do have version
> and
> variant relations among them.
>
> The Part 2 ontology says individuals, collections, and classes can have
> TemporalParts, but the nature of 'temporal part' (the nature of the
> 'states'
> of interest) is only defined for collections.
>
> [MW2>] Please give me the reference to where this is stated. Only possible
> individuals have temporal parts. Here is the bit of model where it is
> defined. Classes of individual can of course have
> class_of_temporal_whole_part (e.g. projects have lifecycle stages). But as
> usual, it is important not to confuse levels of abstraction.
>
>
>
>
>
> [EJB Experts have created useful industry data repository models for
> things
> that have 'temporal parts' for over 20 years, by creating their specific
> state, state identity, and whole life individual notions in their data
> models/ontologies where appropriate. And Part 2 and Part 4 (the
> templates)
> do not alleviate the need to do that! All that is provided is a standard
> term for the general concept. Part 4 does not provide any real
> assistance
> in defining class-specific notions of TemporalPart.
>
> [MW2>] I don't really follow this. Could you give some examples of what
> you
> are looking for that you find missing?
>
> Even worse, the philosophy of Part 4 seems to be that the modeler must be
> bludgeoned into using undefined temporal parts in many places, presumably
> so
> that the resulting ontology will accidentally work with another ontology
> that uses a careful temporal parts notion in the same areas.
>
> [MW2>] Again, I'm not sure what you mean by undefined. A state is
> interesting because you want to say something about it. There are
> relatively
> few possibilities:
>
> 1. You might want to classify it (including status and physical
> quantities/properties)
>
> 2. It might be the state playing a particular role (by which it must
> be classified) in a relationship.
>
> 3. It might be the state participating in a role in an activity,
> again
> it must be classified by the role it plays.
>
> In the first case, there is no class-specific notion that seems to me to
> be
> relevant, you just interested that this state of the whole life individual
> has this property. In the other cases it is classified by the role played,
> which should be sufficient to indicate your interest in it.
>
> What am I missing here?
>
> And that simply does not work: Two viewpoint models for the same space
> may
> see different sets of interesting states as the useful temporal parts of
> the
> same object. (Another blow to the SC4 theory of accidental integration of
> ontologies.)
>
> [MW2>] Why do you think this does not result in integration? I already
> said
> states can overlap temporally, and combining states from different
> viewpoints means that more states can be calculated that are the
> intersection or aggregation of the sets of states. Granted you need a
> mereotopology calculus to do that. In fact I wrote a paper with John Stell
> a
> few years ago to make some first steps towards that. (sorry about the
> URL).
>
> https://d2024367-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/drmatthewwest/publ
> ications/StellWestFOIS2004Final.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cqusDsg0ObxA--wgthiYKiRR
> 4q_052QOjjhNUcXGWfijh4Fus6k16sFLIoxVQQyU4XMOAjQLsW6m1JsQSE9F8atYvuadOGrge-QA
> pl9N6QQlfsSPpf8m9B4bkB8Pa4WSx1IvKk95s9SIRNzX3NjNnz7JKve96zXksHl3Y6WsJ21rabGN
> 3XF5ZhY5spW80l0KTPQgkDsu0sNPanxLOlQv9AMrY1UJuzj9495WVJXlDY1KuaY532osUXbEoZZJ
> naQcJz-u-mh
> <https://d2024367-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/drmatthewwest/pub
> lications/StellWestFOIS2004Final.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cqusDsg0ObxA--wgthiYKiR
> R4q_052QOjjhNUcXGWfijh4Fus6k16sFLIoxVQQyU4XMOAjQLsW6m1JsQSE9F8atYvuadOGrge-Q
> Apl9N6QQlfsSPpf8m9B4bkB8Pa4WSx1IvKk95s9SIRNzX3NjNnz7JKve96zXksHl3Y6WsJ21rabG
> N3XF5ZhY5spW80l0KTPQgkDsu0sNPanxLOlQv9AMrY1UJuzj9495WVJXlDY1KuaY532osUXbEoZZ
> JnaQcJz-u-mh&attredirects=0> &attredirects=0
>
> Further, once I have identified meaningful temporal parts, they are
> entities
> in their own right (which is how experts model them in EXPRESS or OWL or
> UML),
>
> [MW2>] Of course they are !!??
>
> and in addition to the properties they have as temporal parts, they also
> have the property of being a part of some particular WholeLifeIndividual
> or
> Class.
>
> [MW2>] Of course!!??
>
> But for some reason, most of the templates make me repeat the relationship
> to the WholeLifeIndividual in stating each characterizing property of the
> temporal part.
>
> [MW2>] I guess this is a question of whether you should help the wise or
> protect the foolish. On the one hand it does no harm to state this
> multiple
> times, and it does if you do it no times - you have a floating state that
> you will likely never find again - but when you have a lot of properties
> to
> state about one state, I can appreciate this could be burdensome. It is
> possible that object information models could be used to overcome this
> problem, where an OIM is a set of templates used together. This would then
> give the opportunity to take the temporal whole part relationship out of
> each of the other property statements. I would be inclined to go that way.
> (By the way, there is nothing to stop you defining your own templates that
> work this way, as long as they a properly grounded and defined in Part 2,
> you should be fine).
>
> It is all part of the mistaken idea that the use of temporal parts must be
> required even when inadvertent.
>
> [MW2>] I'm not sure what you mean by "inadvertent", but I can appreciate
> that it can be irritating to be required to say the same thing repeatedly,
> though in my experience this happens in many practical environments - e.g.
> spreadsheet or demormalised tables.
>
>
>
> My evidence for saying that is the fact that when you use Part 2, you do
> the
> same tasks as you would in making a normal OWL ontology ... what are my
> classes, where do they overlap/subsume, what are my relations, what are my
> properties and their datatypes, etc. So,I actually agree with Ed on this
> one
> ... best to treat 15926 Part 2 as a modeling language.
>
>
>
> Also, because 15926 is dependant on the use of reference *data* and weak
> on
> constraint specification, today there is not actually a 15926 ontology at
> all (in the everyday sense of that word). I think Ed and Matthew are both
> actually saying that, just in different ways.
>
> [MW>] I agree. You can add limited cardinality constraints, and you may be
> able to put constraints in templates (I'm not sure, but I hope you can)
> but
> it is largely constraint free. This goes back to the purpose, which was
> data
> integration, and the experience that constraints generally get in the way
> of
> that. We were expecting that the constraints would be in the applications
> that created the data that you were integrating, so there was no special
> need to focus on constraints in the integration model itself.
>
>
>
> [EJB] We all agree here. See my response to Andrea. The upshot is that
> some constraints are definitive, and those must be part of the ontology.
> Other constraints are imposed by the application. They may be appropriate
> in a data model, but are not appropriate in the ontology. The problem I
> have with the KR language created by Part 2 and Part 4 is that, unlike
> OWL,
> it does not give me a way to create definitive axioms for a class.
>
> [MW2>] I agree. We did look at how we might do this, but it was a bridge
> too
> far at the time. I would welcome proposals for how this might be done (not
> that that counts for anything these days). Just moving to OWL does not
> seem
> to be the answer.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Matthew West
>
> Information Junction
>
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
>
> Skype: dr.matthew.west
>
> <mailto:matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> <http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/>
> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
>
> <https://www.matthew-west.org.uk/> https://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
> and Wales No. 6632177.
>
> Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City,
> Hertfordshire,
> SG6 2SU.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> -Ed
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> David
>
>
> UK +44 7788 561308
>
> US +1 336 283 0606
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 30 Jan 2014, at 10:02, Matthew West wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Ed,
>
> Dear Matthew,
>
> What is in Part 2 is not an ontology for process plant information. It is
> an ontology for everything, and therefore an ontology for nothing in
> particular.
> [MW>] That is of course untrue. That is, it is indeed an ontology of
> everything, and process plant is something, therefore Part 2 is an
> ontology
> of process plant. It is also a very particular ontology. It is not just
> something vague.
> We did not set out to create an ontology of everything. We just found that
> constraining it to anything less meant that we were forever having to
> change
> our models as new areas were brought into scope. In the end we concluded
> it
> was just cheaper to have a mode of everything, because then we would not
> need that continual maintenance.
>
> The RDL should be the reference ontology for process plant information.
> It
> reuses such elements of the Part 2 upper ontology as are useful in
> characterizing process plant elements, rather than healthcare elements or
> forestry elements, for example. It is the RDL, not Part 2, that will be
> used to convey industrial information.
> [MW>] Of course, the RDL is where the specifics lie.
>
> There seems to be a view that the RDL is just a 'vocabulary' to be used
> with
> whatever axioms and facts the individual use requires.
> [MW>] I think that is a mistake, however, the poor quality of some parts
> of
> the RDL means that this is sometimes the best use that can be made. I am
> reminded of Robert Adams description of early version of the RDL as a
> "list
> of famous names". One should not underestimate the utility of even this
> low
> level of use. It does at least address the identity issue - we agree to
> use
> this code/name to indicate we are talking about the same thing.
>
> Even so, if the classifiers and properties are carefully defined (so that
> reuse is meaningful), some part of those definitions can be formally
> axiomatized.
> [MW>] I agree. I'm disappointed more progress has not been made in that
> direction.
>
> The important point here is that industry has to agree on what
> CentrifugalPump means in terms of structure and possible characterizing
> properties.
> [MW>] Quite a lot has actually been done on that, although one of the
> conclusions is that different companies actually have different
> requirements
> for data about centrifugal pumps, depending on their internal processes.
> So
> at present, there is a long list of properties a centrifugal pump can have
> (there are external standards, e.g. API, you can look at for these), and
> different selections of these made by different companies.
>
> The fact that it is a "class of inanimate physical object" (part 2) is not
> really very interesting.
> [MW>] Of course. That is just in case you need an entity type you need to
> turn into a table to hold the data.
>
> The RDL is the 'vocabulary' in a KR language whose syntax is defined by
> n-ary "templates" in Part 4, and the semantics of that language is defined
> in terms of Part 2 concepts
> [MW>] Sounds about right.
> (i.e., at a high-level of abstraction, which is unfortunate for a language
> that has no user-defined verbs).
> [MW>] I don't understand what you mean by "A language that has no
> user-defined verbs". Especially since you can add both classes of
> relationship and classes of activity to the "vocabulary" which are
> normally
> in verb form.
>
> Even worse, a "Centrifugal Pump description" is a "functional object"
> (Part
> 2), but it may be viewed as a "subclass of" CentrifugalPump and therefore
> as
> an "instance of" "class of class of inanimate physical object".
> [MW>] I really don't know where this comes from. There is no
> functional_object entity type in Part 2, there is
> functional_physical_object, and class_of_functional_object. Pump is given
> as
> an example of class_of_functional_object.
> I would expect "centrifugal pump description" to describe a class of
> relationship between some text and the class pump, I have no idea how it
> could be considered a subtype of centrifugal pump, because a description
> of
> a pump is not a type of pump.
> Please explain further.
>
> This elegant abstraction is so arcane to domain engineers, and to most
> domain modelers, that the chance that they will use the Part 2 ideas
> correctly is non-existent. Further, it is utterly irrelevant.
> [MW>] Indeed. It is unfortunate that the entity relationship paradigm
> requires data to be an instance of some entity type, and not just allow
> you
> to declare them as subtypes of entity types, but there it is.
>
> What they need to understand is the difference between a CentrifugalPump
> (the physical thing) and a CentrifugalPumpDescription (the model element,
> the procurement spec),
> [MW>] Ah! That's what it means. An unfortunate name, since
> SpecifiedCentrifugalPump would be less ambiguous.
>
> because in the industry itself, the term "centrifugal pump" is used for
> BOTH!
> [MW>] Of course. Happens all the time, people are good at disambiguation.
> We
> have to tease the different things apart and try to give them names that
> are
> not too offensive, but regular.
>
> And when the RDL introduces a term like Class_of_Centrifugal_Pump when
> they
> mean either of the latter two, it adds to the confusion.
> [MW>] Well this is part of the problem of being regular. The problem is
> that
> it is common place to use the term "pump" when we mean both the set of
> pumps
> (things you can kick) and the set of pump models (that are themselves
> classes with member from the previous set of pumps). We have to
> disambiguate
> these two usages, and you are really left with two choices, call the pumps
> you can kick pump instances (or something similar) and the pump models and
> specifications pump, or call the pumps you can kick pumps and the pump
> models and specifications class of pump, or something similar, to
> disambiguate them. For better or worse, we went for the latter. One reason
> being that if we started the name of things that were classes with
> class_of... then you knew what sort of thing you were dealing with, and
> were
> less likely to be confused. Of course whichever choice you make, at least
> half the people are unhappy (never mind those who thought it should have
> been type instead of class). Regularity in naming has a value in larger
> ontologies.
>
> API 610 defines "classes of Centrifugal Pump" typically by impeller
> structure, but surely the plant design spec has to provide more
> information
> than that, e.g., required flow rate and d ischarge pressure, and what
> Emerson's catalogue contains is labeled "Centrifugal Pumps". So the
> engineer will be confused if you call the design element or the Emerson
> catalogue entry a "class of Centrifugal Pump".
> [MW>] I hope there is a "Pump Model" entry in the class library for that
> sort of thing. If not I would advocate its addition.
>
> That is, the terminology derived from the elegant upper ontology model
> gets
> in the way of communicating with the industry experts who will develop the
> detailed RDL, and with the software toolsmiths it is designed to serve!
> [MW>] It shouldn't. It should not even be seen by most. That is one of the
> reasons why you should have layers in an ontology.
>
> Two notes from Matthew's comments below:
>
> 1. Matthew the experienced systems/knowledge engineer does not see the
> commonality between the OMG Model-Driven Architecture, which is about
> designing software top-down, and the STEP Architecture, which is about
> designing exchange files top-down, because they use different words and
> have
> love affairs with different modeling concepts. My upper ontology for the
> problem space of software design sees them as sufficiently analogous to be
> instances of a common paradigm.
> MW: OK. So you are railing generally against top down development rather
> than specifically OMG's model driven architecture of that.
>
> This difference in perception is exactly the problem that the people who
> produce software to support petroleum engineering have with ISO 15926 Part
> 2
> and the template-based language for modeling their domain. It ain't their
> words, and they don't see their concepts. All of their concepts are in
> the
> RDL.
> [MW>] Which is fine, then they should use stuff at the RDL level. I have
> never expected software engineers developing CAD systems to suddenly try
> to
> implement their software around data structures based on Part 2. It
> defines
> an integration environment, which may well be virtual, as in the IRING
> architecture.
>
> 2. Matthew notes that some successful applications of 15926 have in fact
> done the application-specific knowledge engineering and then mapped their
> concepts and representations back to ISO 15926 Part 2 and Part 4, the
> descriptive process that I agree with. Unfortunately, the current
> approach
> in the standards activity is prescriptive as to how this is to be done --
> the exchange forms are derived by rote from the templates, converting
> n-ary
> verbs to composites of RDF triples. Any standard KR language already has
> a
> well-defined form for the knowledge captured in that language, but SC4 is
> still trying to define one (or more accurately 219 distinct patterns --
> their new KR language syntax). So, I see the standardization process
> following a different , and undesirable, pattern, from the one used for
> successful interchange.
> [MW>] I think that is a misinterpretation of what is happening. There is
> no
> prescription about how things will be done. That is just not what
> standards
> are for, and you know it. Standards are permissive unless they are made
> prescriptive in national law. The reality is that some people have decided
> that it would be useful to agree a way that it can be done using some
> particular technologies. The idea for ISO 15926 is to be promiscuous in
> this
> respect rather than prescriptive. So as alternative technologies come
> along,
> I expect groups of people to come together to work out how best to deploy
> that technology to integrate and exchange process plant data.
>
> MW: So my conclusion is, Ed, that you are largely tilting at windmills.
>
> Regards
> Matthew
>
> -Ed
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:ontology-
>
> summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ]
> On Behalf Of Matthew West
>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 10:01 AM
>
> To: 'Ontology Summit 2014 discussion'
>
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] The tools are not the problem (yet)
>
>
>
> Dear Ed,
>
>
>
>
>
> Well, Matthew, we do seem to agree on the first bullet. What the
>
> 15926 community most needs to do is to make a real ontology for
>
> process plant information, translated "improve the Reference Data
>
> Libraries (RDL)".
>
> Making useful OWL ontologies is either part of that process -- making
>
> a worthwhile reference ontology -- or it isn't, but it is not
>
> ancillary. The current RDL is a taxonomy, full stop. And instead of
>
> real DataProperties and ObjectProperties, it has 200 "templates" for
>
> constructing those properties from the 'property classes' in the RDL,
>
> which in turn leads to arguments about what the RDF representation of
>
> instance data should look like. With OWL models, the RDF instance
>
> representation is well-defined by an existing and widely implemented
>
> standard. So, choosing ONE suggests itself as the most effective way to
>
> make a Standard!
>
> [MW>] Well the RDL is not supposed to be used on its own. The ontology
>
> is in Part 2, and the RDL provides specialized uses of it, and the
>
> templates pick out particular uses of bits of Part 2 and the RDL. Also
>
> the RDL is not simply a taxonomy, though parts of it may be, sometimes
>
> erroneously.
>
>
>
> The underlying problem here is the Model-Driven Architecture approach,
>
> as formalized twice in TC184/SC4. First, you make a two-tier
>
> conceptual model of the space, in a language that is supposed to be
>
> suitable for conceptual models, independent of "platform class"
>
> (object-oriented, relational, tree structure, description logic). The
>
> top tier is a collection of meaningless abstractions that is supposed
>
> to be the basis for integrating models (in lieu of looking at the
>
> relationships among the model viewpoints and content). The second
>
> tier is many separate models of useful information in the problem
>
> space, which are forcibly coupled to the worthless top-tier concepts.
>
> Then you "map" the conceptual model to some implementation form, using
>
> a well- defined rigorous process. Of course, the implementation forms
>
> are specific to "platform class", and the conceptual models are not
>
> really independent of platform classes, because they have their own
>
> structuring rules, and the modelers h ave existing prejudices. So, we
>
> end up with rigorous methods for putting a square peg in a round hole.
>
> [MW>] I'm not sure I recognise this as what I understand by Model
>
> Driven Architecture (which I take to be a series of models,
>
> meta-models and meta- meta models) or even the STEP architecture,
>
> which your description more closely resembles. However, neither the
>
> meta modelling approach of OMG or the STEP architecture approach
>
> applies to ISO 15926. The approach in ISO
>
> 15926 arose from precisely looking at the relationships among model
>
> viewpoints and content, and then looking at how they could be integrated.
>
> There are no meaningless abstractions (i.e. just data structures to
>
> which meaning has to be assigned in context, by e.g. mapping tables).
>
> Though there are certainly some very abstract concepts.
>
> For what it is worth the ISO 15926 conceptual architecture is a single
>
> level in which the models, meta-models and meta-meta models all reside
>
> together (hence recent talk of namespaces). The only other thing is
>
> the language in which it is defined, which for part 2 was EXPRESS.
>
> This was not an ideal language for the purpose - since it essentially
>
> forced the split between data model and data - but it is what we had.
>
> When a more appropriate language emerges that can cope with ISO 15926
>
> as a single level, I hope we will migrate to it. OWL shows some promise,
>
> but still had important limitations.
>
>
>
> A consequence of this approach is that the body spends a lot of time
>
> defining modeling conventions, and even more time defining
>
> architectures, methodologies, and mapping formalisms, none of which
>
> has any direct value to industry. And the mismatch between the
>
> conceptual structures and the vogue implementation structures creates
>
> ugly exchange forms for otherwise well-defined information concepts.
>
> [MW>] Yes. That does sound like STEP.
>
>
>
> Coming back to the thrust of the Subject line, I have come to the
>
> conclusion that this process is upside down. What you want to do is
>
> create a conceptual model ('ontology') for the problem space in some
>
> formal language, and define the XML or RDF or JSON exchange schema for
>
> THAT model. Then you need a mapping language that explains the
>
> relationship of the chosen exchange form to the conceptual model.
>
> That is, you DESCRIBE what you DID, rather than PRESCRIBING what you
>
> MUST DO. (In engineering, this is the "trace" from the design to the
>
> requirements.) The great advantage of this approach is that it allows
>
> engineering choices that are convenient to the implementer community!
>
> And it can be used to describe other engineering choices made by other
>
> groups defining exchange forms for the same or closely related
>
> concepts. This is a top-down engineering process that allows for tradeoff
>
> in the product design.
>
> [MW>] That should work in an ISO 15926 environment, and is what, as
>
> far as I know, many people have done. A typical project might take a
>
> look at the RDL and templates for coverage of their domain for simple
>
> reuse, then come up with its own conceptual model, then map it to the
>
> ISO 15926 data model, templates and RDL. Your structures are in principle,
>
> just more templates.
>
> Mapping to Part 2 and the RDL is really part of the analysis, which
>
> will cause questions to be asked about what you really mean, but that
>
> will help the work you have done to be reusable, as well as improve
>
> it. Almost certainly, you will find there are things missing that you
>
> need, (i.e. the mapping will be
>
> incomplete) so you need to add those things (usually to the RDL). The
>
> mapping becomes the formal definition of what you have done. One
>
> result of this, is that any data you create can be mapped through to
>
> the underlying data model for reuse in other schemas where the data
>
> overlaps.
>
> That is how integration happens. Developing Part 11 went somewhat like
>
> that.
>
>
>
> Way back in the 1980s, the ANSI 3-schema architecture for database
>
> design views the process of design as beginning with viewpoint schemas
>
> for the participating applications. These schemas are then integrated
>
> (not
>
> federated) into a conceptual schema that relates all the concepts in
>
> the viewpoint schemas. The resulting conceptual schema is the
>
> relational model of the stored data (the reference ontology). The
>
> formal viewpoint schemas (external views) are then derived from the
>
> conceptual schema by 'view mappings' that actually transform the
>
> stored data into the organizations demanded by the views (using
>
> "extended relational operators"). The SC4 two-tier modeling mistake
>
> is failing to realize that the process begins with the view schemas
>
> that have direct VALUE to industrial applications, and that the
>
> integrating schema, which allows for new and overlapping applications,
>
> is DERIVED from them. We have confused the organization of the
>
> results with the organization of the enginee ring process, and once again
>
> we have canonized an upside-down approach.
>
> [MW>] Obviously I disagree. In ISO 15926 we followed closely the 3
>
> schema approach, to get to the conceptual schema, which we carefully
>
> designed to be extensible. We went through multiple evolutions and
>
> revolutions in developing the conceptual schema over a 10 year period
>
> to achieve something that was reusable, stable and extensible.
>
>
>
> My biggest problem with 15926 is the amount of religion attached to
>
> these rigorous top-down approaches, and the enormous resource
>
> expenditures on make-work that that religion engenders.
>
> [MW>] If you are employing a top down process, then you are certainly
>
> doing it wrong - unless you really have a green field, and it's a
>
> while since I've seen one of those.
>
>
>
> The quality of the results suffers seriously from this diversion of
>
> effort.
>
> And I would bet that the so-called 'pre-standardization achievements'
>
> were accomplished using the inverted engineering process that I
>
> describe, each with its own agreement on exchange form.
>
> [MW>] I expect all benefits are achieved in that way. The cycle is
>
> supposed to be that you raid what you can from the larder, and add
>
> back what you found missing for others to use. Reducing reinvention is one
>
> of the benefits.
>
>
>
> Further, what I see appearing in the implementation community is
>
> projects making their own concept models and their own engineering
>
> choices and then tracing back to the RDL, and the required religious
>
> rites, in annexes.
>
> [MW>] I don't have a problem with that approach. I would hope that
>
> doing the mapping would add some value to the analysis process, rather
>
> than being a tick box exercise - which is of course a waste of space.
>
> If you have done a good mapping, your data is integrable with other
>
> ISO 15926 data when it is required to repurpose it.
>
>
>
> -Ed
>
>
>
> P.S. Yes, I agree that this whole discussion is a holdover from last
>
> year's Summit topic. You don't get to do top-down engineering for Big
>
> Data.
>
> [MW>] I think the big mistake you are making is assuming that using an
>
> upper ontology necessarily means you are doing top down engineering.
>
> The purpose of an upper ontology (at least in ISO 15926) is so that
>
> you can add more bits that work together to make a greater whole that
>
> can be reused by others. Some discipline is required to make that
>
> virtuous circle work, but it is certainly not top down engineering.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Matthew West
>
> Information Junction
>
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
>
> Skype: dr.matthew.west
>
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
>
> https://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in
>
> England and Wales No. 6632177.
>
> Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City,
>
> Hertfordshire,
>
> SG6 2SU.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> <mailto:edbark@xxxxxxxx>
>
> National Institute of Standards & Technology Systems Integration Division
>
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Work: +1 301-975-3528
>
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Mobile: +1 240-672-5800
>
>
>
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and
>
> have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:ontology-
>
> summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ]
> On Behalf Of Matthew West
>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 3:49 AM
>
> To: 'Ontology Summit 2014 discussion'
>
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] The tools are not the problem (yet)
>
>
>
> Dear Ed,
>
> That's not what I said, and you know it...
>
>
>
> It does not follow from success having been achieved that there are
>
> not further opportunities for investment.
>
>
>
> In particular, ISO 15926 was developed using a previous generation
>
> of languages and technology and we should look at how to move it
>
> forward.
>
> Not that this stops it being used - it was designed to be as
>
> independent
>
> of
>
> the implementation technology as possible.
>
>
>
> My priorities would be:
>
>
>
> 1. Improve the RDL. There is a lot that is useful there, but also a
>
> lot of
>
> crud
>
> that has crept in - and that is where the pesky details belong.
>
> There are
>
> also
>
> areas where it could usefully be extended. The advantage of work in
>
> this area is that there are no obvious technical barriers (but there
>
> do seem to
>
> be
>
> political ones). There are quick wins here.
>
>
>
> 2. I would encourage development of OWL versions of ISO 15926, but
>
> in particular, improvements to OWL that would make it better suited
>
> to the expressiveness of ISO 15926, and for data integration as well
>
> as
>
> reasoning.
>
>
>
> 3. I would encourage the development of the IRING architecture and
>
> implementations of it. In particular I would be looking for Quad
>
> store technology. ISO 15926 is naturally quad based - a triple plus
>
> an
>
> identifier for
>
> the triple.
>
>
>
> Whereas much of the costs of moving engineering data through the
>
> plant lifecycle have been removed, there is still plenty of
>
> opportunity to
>
> improve
>
> collaboration through the supply chain, and reduce project
>
> development times (which can be worth $1m/day for larger projects).
>
>
>
> Specifically, I would be looking for equipment manufacturers to be
>
> publishing
>
> data sheets as ISO 15926 linked data, as well as IRING
>
> implementations to help with collaboration between owners and
>
> contractors in developing requirements, and reviewing designs.
>
>
>
> And no, I don't think there is a need to standardise how a tool can
>
> implement
>
> a conforming exchange for point to point exchanges. I think that is
>
> a
>
> tactical
>
> matter. I'm not even sure you need that for IRING. What you do need
>
> is an understanding of how to map data from various tools to ISO
>
> 15926, and out again, but I don't see how it is appropriate to
>
> standardise how that
>
> mapping
>
> is done since that would be specific to each particular tool.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Matthew West
>
> Information Junction
>
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
>
> Skype: dr.matthew.west
>
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
>
> https://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in
>
> England and Wales No. 6632177.
>
> Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City,
>
> Hertfordshire,
>
> SG6 2SU.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>
> Barkmeyer, Edward J
>
> Sent: 27 January 2014 19:09
>
> To: Ontology Summit 2014 discussion
>
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] The tools are not the problem (yet)
>
>
>
> Matthew,
>
>
>
> OK. 15926 is highly successful, and there is no need for further
>
> development
>
> of access mechanisms, templates, OWL mappings or any of that stuff,
>
> because the useful stuff is already in wide use in industry. So
>
> NIST and
>
> the
>
> USA need not invest further effort in the standards work on 15926,
>
> except
>
> in
>
> the development of useful 'reference data libraries', i.e.,
>
> 'reference ontologies for process plants'. How a plant design tool
>
> can implement a conforming exchange using one of those ontologies is
>
> already standardized and widely implemented, right?
>
>
>
> That is, after 10 years, we have standardized everything we need
>
> except
>
> all
>
> those pesky details that are actually used in designing and building
>
> and operating a process plant.
>
>
>
> -Ed
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:ontology-
>
> summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ]
> On Behalf Of Matthew West
>
> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 1:22 AM
>
> To: 'Ontology Summit 2014 discussion'
>
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] The tools are not the problem (yet)
>
>
>
> Dear Ed,
>
> You are indeed rather late to the party.
>
>
>
> [EJB] I don't think I have seen an industry "success story" about
>
> 15926, even for 'peer-to-peer application interfacing'.
>
>
>
> MW: You certainly won't find them if you do not look. How about:
>
> https://d2024367-a-62cb3a1a-s-
>
> sites.googlegroups.com/site/drmatthewwest/publ
> <http://sites.googlegroups.com/site/drmatthewwest/publ>
>
> ications/STEPintoTheRealWorld.PDF?attachauth=ANoY7crKMLjBQ-
>
> ztRwf87sQKcy0Tsxz
>
> 9GcjcUquJFQl3U-
>
>
>
>
>
> r3rlNRPZQq6NCgA0Xr_yq_IXMo_oG144m4jaJXdYuLOD3q5UsI6CD_YXI8Noh
>
>
>
>
>
> 7We_KilyxzWEwDN9iz0EKYkoIqr_WqVQDjSfzsw3eqgVlf4I81kawZoORdXC0W
>
> 0dYNWB2n2w0qdF
>
> PI7i_H6gurmjCiOQ7Rm4VDDdx-
>
> Zdw8kcEhEpuJBojpSZOV_Tn8_jGeMnts83DxVZpnhk4vWQyGDA
>
> cSHR8z1ms&attredirects=0
>
> as just one (pre-standardisation) example of delivering benefits.
>
> There are hundreds of other projects that have used ISO 15926 at
>
> different stages of development in different ways delivering
>
> hundreds of millions of dollars of benefits.
>
>
>
> But if that has been successful on a useful scale, there is no
>
> need for further work on anything but the scope of the reference
>
> ontology, because the peer-to-peer interfaces now exist. The fact
>
> is that they don't. There are no standards for them to implement.
>
> (Actually, ISO
>
> 15926-11 is a pretty good standard. It provides a very accessible
>
> ontology for the concepts in ISO 15288 (systems engineering for
>
> <something>), and a clear mapping from the ontology to an RDF
>
> exchange form for a model population. The a posteriori Part
>
> 4/Part
>
> 2 stuff is an
>
> Annex in the back, if anyone cares.
>
> That is the kind of compromise that 15926 needs more of. And I
>
> think David Price and gang will do something similar in Part 12.)
>
>
>
> MW: Actually, I think the mistake is thinking that it is the
>
> interface standards that are needed. Getting data out of one
>
> system and into another has never been that big a deal in my
>
> experience.
>
> Pretty much any system has an import mechanism with a plain text
>
> format, and pretty much any system has a reporting system that can
>
> create a file to
>
> more or less arbitrary layout.
>
> Job done. If there are problems, they are easily sorted out using
>
> tools like access and spreadsheets. It helps that most data
>
> waterfalls through a series of systems in the process industries,
>
> rather than there being tight integration with a lot of back and
>
> forth in real time. Those requirements have not surprisingly found
>
> themselves in
>
> integrated systems.
>
>
>
> MW: Indeed the BIG IDEA in ISO 15926 was having a generic data
>
> model that enables you to say all the sorts of things that are
>
> important, and an extensible reference data library that provides
>
> the specifics to the level of detail required, and to which you
>
> can add anything you need for new domains plus templates that
>
> incorporate those
>
> specifics.
>
>
>
> MW: The big issue in integration and exchange between systems was
>
> not the exchange format, but the mapping between the different
>
> codes and names different systems used for the same things. The
>
> real achievement of ISO
>
> 15926 is indeed the RDL. As far as I know, by now all the major
>
> design packages for the process industries support the use of an
>
> RDL, including tailoring and extensibility. The oil majors at
>
> least that I have had contact with spend time developing their own
>
> RDLs, these being extended subsets of the ISO 15926 RDL, which
>
> they require to be deployed in their asset management systems
>
> across the lifecycle. So for example, I know that Shell has an
>
> appropriate subset of its RDL
>
> embedded in SAP.
>
>
>
> MW: The big thing here is that this makes the interfacing much
>
> simpler, because the mapping - that was always the expensive and
>
> unreliable bit, has largely been confined to history. That is also
>
> where the big benefits have come from. Largely unreported, because
>
> you don't notice costs you didn't incur that you did not need to
>
> incur if you
>
> did things right.
>
>
>
> MW: And yes, this is what people have been more recently calling
>
> master data management, we were just working out this was what was
>
> needed in the last century.
>
>
>
> MW: So what of IRING and other recent developments? There has
>
> certainly always been an ambition for seamless integration in
>
> developing
>
> ISO 15926.
>
> The reality has been that so far the technology has always fallen
>
> short. XML Schema is OK for defining interface formats, but not
>
> integration (not surprising since it is really a document
>
> specification language). OWL has greater promise, but it is
>
> focussed on reasoning and so has restrictions that are at best
>
> inconvenient for data integration, and much of the current
>
> discussion in the ISO
>
> 15926 community is how best to work around those limitations.
>
> IRING, facades, and the possible use of triple stores is currently
>
> where the cutting edge is. I think the IRING architecture has
>
> merit in the long
>
> term. I'm not sure we have the technology to implement it yet.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Matthew West
>
> Information Junction
>
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
>
> Skype: dr.matthew.west
>
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
>
> https://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in
>
> England and Wales No. 6632177.
>
> Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City,
>
> Hertfordshire,
>
> SG6 2SU.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>
> Barkmeyer, Edward J
>
> Sent: 24 January 2014 22:57
>
> To: Ontology Summit 2014 discussion
>
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] The tools are not the problem (yet)
>
>
>
> Hans,
>
>
>
> Further comments intertwined with yours below.
>
>
>
>
>
> [HT] I shudder when thinking about how bad your tooth and nail
>
> will be if what is below is apparently seen as mild comments by you.
>
>
>
> [EJB] If so, then what is sacred in your view is largely
>
> irrelevant in
>
> mine.
>
> I had rather thought that we had a common goal -- successful
>
> interchange of plant data over the lifecycle.
>
>
>
> this is not only about knowledge engineering; this is about
>
> database engineering using triple stores. (If integrating RDBs
>
> with triple stores and SPARQL is your goal, you should look at
>
> the stuff Kingsley Idehen is doing.) [HT] On what would YOU base
>
> any knowledge, other than facts about all aspects of the plant,
>
> gathered
>
> during decades?
>
> Not
>
> from LOD I hope.
>
>
>
> [EJB] I would BASE the knowledge on the repositories of the facts
>
> about all aspects of the plant, gathered during decades. Our
>
> disagreement is about how we would FURTHER ENGINEER that
>
> knowledge.
>
>
>
> What EPCs already have ...
>
> What does your would-be triple store have to offer them?
>
> [HT] Ignoring your patronizing last sentence this: I have worked
>
> most of my life in such a large firm, I have been in the
>
> trenches, I have designed the first data bases for engineering
>
> and later the integration of data, resulting in such software.
>
> And so did my colleagues
>
> from other large firms.
>
> But we were faced by the fact that everybody was using something
>
> different with different internal formats and geared to their
>
> (different) work procedures. So when we were entering a joint
>
> venture for a multibillion project we were discussing "your
>
> system or
>
> ours?"
>
> in order to be able to communicate and to satisfy the growing
>
> requirements from the side of the plant owners that they wanted
>
> all information in an integrated fashion. That was why PIEBASE
>
> (UK), USPI
>
> (Netherlands) and PoscCaesar (Norway) we formed, and later
>
> together in EPISTLE (Matthew West et al). So yes, we had our
>
> systems, but these were,
>
> in a globalizing world, silos.
>
>
>
> [EJB] Yes, and that was 10 years ago. What came of that? What
>
> "integrated fashion" did they all agree on and implement?
>
>
>
> And yes, until now
>
> ISO 15926 is used for peer-to-peer application interfacing,
>
> succesfully as I heard.
>
>
>
> [EJB] I don't think I have seen an industry "success story" about
>
> 15926, even for 'peer-to-peer application interfacing'. But if
>
> that has been successful on a useful scale, there is no need for
>
> further work on anything but the scope of the reference ontology,
>
> because the peer-to-peer interfaces now exist. The fact is that they
>
> don't.
>
> There
>
> are no standards for them to implement.
>
> (Actually, ISO 15926-11 is a pretty good standard. It provides a
>
> very accessible ontology for the concepts in ISO 15288 (systems
>
> engineering for <something>), and a clear mapping from the
>
> ontology to an RDF exchange form for a model population. The a
>
> posteriori Part 4/Part 2 stuff is an Annex in the back, if anyone
>
> cares. That is the kind of compromise that 15926 needs more of.
>
> And I think David Price and gang will do something similar in Part
>
> 12.)
>
>
>
> And as I started this thread: Standardization is finding a
>
> balance between large ego's, commercial politics, short-term
>
> thinking, hard-to-make paradigm shifts, and for the most lack of
>
> funding.
>
> And I might add: the unwillingness to really understand each
>
> other because that
>
> takes time.
>
>
>
> [EJB] Not to mention the unwillingness to compromise. "Standards
>
> is politics."
>
> What standards-making should NOT be is academic research. Except
>
> possibly in W3C, successful standards standardize something very
>
> close to what is currently in wide use, so that implementation is
>
> a marginal cost, and the return is wider market and lower cost of
>
> sale.
>
> Engineers who create new technologies seek patents, not standards.
>
> The lack of wide success with
>
> TC184/SC4 standards can largely be attributed to the creation of
>
> an unnecessarily high cost of implementation, which results from
>
> the adoption of complex mappings from concept to exchange form.
>
>
>
> The concern is: can we develop an integrating ontology that can
>
> be used for semantic mediation between the existing schemas, and
>
> provide a useful exchange form based on the integrating ontology?
>
> ...
>
> [HT] WE DON'T HAVE an "integrating ontology", other than the
>
> Part
>
> 2 data model and the templates derived from that, where the
>
> latters are completely data-driven and representing the smallest
>
> possible chunk of information.
>
>
>
> [EJB] Umm... Capturing the concepts needed for particular
>
> information sets ("data driven") is in fact how ontologies are
>
> built. It helps if there are also "common lower ontologies" --
>
> quantities, time, location, identifiers, etc. -- that can be
>
> reused directly. The templates and Part 2 lend very little to the
>
> construction of ontologies for exchanging plant data. Those who
>
> see a value in it are welcome to pursue that value, but they
>
> should not
>
> impose it on others.
>
> As in Part 11, the template mappings can be added as an annex
>
> behind the problem domain ontologies and the specification of
>
> their exchange
>
> form.
>
>
>
> What is different is that ISO 15926 calls for explicit
>
> information, where most data bases (and documents) carry
>
> implicit information, making shortcuts, that is understandable
>
> for the initiated only, but not for computers. Examples
>
> galore: an attribute of a process boiler: "fluid category", an
>
> attribute of a pressure vessel: "test fluid" and "test
>
> pressure", an attribute of a centrifugal
>
> pump: "impeller diameter", etc, etc. We are working on "patterns"
>
> that will bridge the gap between implicit and explicit
>
> information
>
> representation.
>
>
>
> [EJB] Yes, what is different is that you are making an ontology,
>
> not a data model. But the effect is that you are trying to educate
>
> ignorant software engineers and plant engineers in the art of
>
> knowledge engineering. That is not your job, and it is the SC4
>
> mistake. The requirement for the glorious standards effort is to
>
> have participating experts with the ability to construct good
>
> formal models in the standard. Failing that, it is not your job
>
> to try to produce that expertise by teaching the otherwise
>
> experienced domain engineers your trade. It is necessary to
>
> entice more people with your expertise, or
>
> scale down the project to what you have resources to do well.
>
> You, and those of you who have the background, should be
>
> developing the ontologies from these 'available knowledge'
>
> systems, leveraging the available domain expertise, instead of
>
> trying to create a strict structure in which the neophytes will be
>
> forced to get it right.
>
> They
>
> won't: fools are too ingenious. And in the process, you have
>
> created an impediment to participation by expert
>
> modelers. By comparison, you and/or the participating expert
>
> knowledge
>
> engineers, would make a good model, and sort out the missing
>
> objects and the mis-assigned properties, and you won't need all
>
> the overhead to get that right.
>
>
>
> [EJB] When an industry group makes an OWL domain model for a small
>
> part of the problem space, the last thing they need is a
>
> requirement to figure how to use the Part 4 templates to express
>
> that model as a derivative of the Part 2 upper ontology. It is a
>
> waste of their time, and
>
> it is irrelevant to their goal.
>
> That exercise is pure cost, with no clear return. There is value
>
> to having someone knowledgeable about the related ontology quality
>
> issues read, and recommend improvements to, their model. If you
>
> see some clear return on the investment of developing a template
>
> mapping to Part 2, then you have a motive for doing that, while they
>
> don't.
>
> And ultimately, their data exchange will be mapped to their model,
>
> because that is the model the domain experts understood. If you
>
> transmogrify that OWL model into a bunch of template instances,
>
> you create an added costly learning curve for their implementers
>
> that has no RoI for them or their sponsors. The people who see
>
> RoI in the gi ant triple store can develop the technology to
>
> transmogrify the domain ontologies and data for the triple store
>
> purposes, not force the domain modelers and the domain
>
> implementers to be concerned with it. (In lieu of tooth and nail,
>
> I perceive this to be a compromise
>
> position.)
>
>
>
> [EJB] By way of defense of my position, I would point out that
>
> after a mere
>
> 15 years of working with the god-awful STEP architecture, the
>
> implementers of ISO 10303 concluded that it provided nearly no
>
> assistance in integrating the conforming models of product data
>
> and processes that were made from diverse viewpoints. That model
>
> architecture added significant cost to the creation of the
>
> exchange standards themselves and even greater cost to the
>
> implementations that had to read the transmogrified data and
>
> convert it back to product information. The theory that uniform
>
> structures will produce concept integration was proven false in
>
> ISO 10303, and the similar theory will
>
> prove false for ISO 15926, even though you are using RDF instead of
>
> EXPRESS.
>
> In making and integrating ontologies, no set of strictures is a
>
> substitute for the application of knowledge engineering expertise.
>
>
>
> But their critical path also involves a viable exchange form;
>
> and a clumsy form, born of obsession with triples and upper
>
> ontologies, will interfere with wide adoption.
>
> [HT] Wait and see.
>
>
>
> [EJB] Quo usque tandem? There is no profit in saying 15 years later
>
> "I
>
> told you so".
>
>
>
> -Ed
>
>
>
> P.S. I chose to burden the Forum with this email only because I
>
> worry that other well-meaning standards bodies might follow
>
> TC184/SC4's model for the use of ontologies in standards, to their
>
> own
>
> detriment.
>
> (And yeah, that was last year's issue.)
>
>
>
> --
>
> Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> <mailto:edbark@xxxxxxxx>
>
> National Institute of Standards & Technology Systems Integration
>
> Division
>
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Work: +1 301-975-3528
>
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Mobile: +1 240-672-5800
>
>
>
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
>
> and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
>
> _______
>
> 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/OntologySummit2014/
>
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
>
> bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
>
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
>
> _______
>
> 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/OntologySummit2014/
>
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
>
> bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
>
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
>
> _______
>
> 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/OntologySummit2014/
>
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
>
> bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
>
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
>
> _______
>
> 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/OntologySummit2014/
>
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
>
> bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
>
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
>
> _______
>
> 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/OntologySummit2014/
>
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
>
> bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
>
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
>
> _______
>
> 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/OntologySummit2014/
>
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
>
> bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
>
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/OntologySummit2014/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/OntologySummit2014/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/OntologySummit2014/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> (033)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (034)
|