On 2/5/2014 3:14 PM, Barkmeyer, Edward J wrote:
> Well, if mainstream IT is to be the judge, I am unaware of any Java
> syntax that says "Class A is equivalent to Class B", and similarly,
> I don't know of anything in XML schema declaration that says "element
> (or type) tag A is a synonym for element (or type) tag B". (01)
Java is a procedural language. (02)
But people were stating equivalences in their native NLs
long before they invented writing. (03)
To say that two types or classes A and B are equivalent,
all you have to say is: (04)
Every A is a B, and every B is an A. (05)
Whenever a customer signs a contract for a vendor to build a widget,
there is in that contract or in one of the documents cited by it
an equivalence of the following form: (06)
A widget is a whatchamacallit that has the following structure
and properties: ... (07)
This states an equivalence between the type or class widget and
the subtype or subclass of whatchamacallit that has the specified
structure and properties. (08)
I cited Schema.org as an example of how to get mainstream IT
to use ontology: give them readable labels with clearly written
descriptions in English (or other NLs). Don't dump a load of
bloated, unreadable notation on them with descriptions in
unreadable jargon. (09)
John (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/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (011)
|