Re: [ontology-summit] OWl and Knowledge reuse via import and modularizat

[Andrea Westerinen <arwesterinen@xxxxxxxxx>]

John, While I actually hate XML ("a syntax in search of a semantic", and a bloated syntax at that), a part of me doesn't really care.  (I once wrote an entire Continuing Education infrastructure in RPG since that was the only language that the customer had on a System36!)  One learns to make do.

What I do care about is that I can define my concepts so that a computer can process them, and then can render a human readable output from that "definition".

One can easily argue that any programming language, any DSL that needs to specify variables, SQL or SPARQL, or whatever, are not human-friendly.  I agree but mainstream IT has certainly adopted arcane and complex languages. 

The issue comes down to tooling and training, and standards and conventions that the tooling and training can build against.

Andrea

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:17 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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".

Java is a procedural language.

But people were stating equivalences in their native NLs
long before they invented writing.

To say that two types or classes A and B are equivalent,
all you have to say is:

    Every A is a B, and every B is an A.

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:

    A widget is a whatchamacallit that has the following structure
    and properties: ...

This states an equivalence between the type or class widget and
the subtype or subclass of whatchamacallit that has the specified
structure and properties.

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.

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/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/

--

Andrea Westerinen

T: 425.891.8407

arwesterinen@xxxxxxxxx or andreaw@xxxxxxxxxxx

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?AndreaWesterinen

organizingknowledge.blogspot.com

_________________________________________________________________
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/     (01)