John,
Re: For those who are as yet less convinced (with good reason!) about
the benefits of ontologies and logic at all, the story obviously looks
quite different.
[cbc] Looked at another way, ontologies are just another kind of model.
The repositories we have in mind would support models of any form,
including ontologies. I doubt the OOR requirements would be much
different for the architecture ecosystem. (01)
Re: Couldn't quite follow that: are you suggesting the CL has a well
developed community and open tools? (lead me to them.... :-) (02)
[cbc] No, I was suggesting this is why it is still fringe. (03)
-Cory (04)
-----Original Message-----
From: John Bateman [mailto:bateman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 1:40 PM
To: Cory Casanave
Cc: [sio-dev] discussion; AESIG
Subject: Re: [sio-dev] Sharing and Integrating Ontologies (05)
Thanks Cory, (06)
> For the OMG connection to this you should be aware of the process and
> expectations. What is going on now in the "architecture ecosystem"
> SIG is the brainstorming part of a standards process ... (07)
this is important and useful info; my response was admittedly first
of all intended for the sio-dev branch of the discussion since we
consider approaches to modularity and heterogeneity
as an essential component of attempts
to build Open Ontology Repositories.
For those who are as yet less convinced (with good reason!)
about the benefits of ontologies and logic at all, the story
obviously looks quite different. (08)
Nevertheless, we are indeed considering
the kind of structuring layer for specifications that
we are building as a strong candidate for standardisation
and have some proposals and projects running in this
direction; we see this as an *additional* contribution
to work on the logic framework of, e.g.,
the semantic web stack, not a replacement of other
efforts. Placing certain functionality (e.g., encapsulation)
in this structuring layer seems a more robust solution to us than adding
individual features to individual languages, logics, etc.
But it is very early days and there is much to do. (09)
> CL is a possibility but on the fringe of possible options, yet this
> is an ISO standard already! Why? Experience, a well developed
> community and products (open or commercial) that implement it to
> solve this kind of problems. (010)
Couldn't quite follow that: are you suggesting the CL has
a well developed community and open tools? (lead me to them.... :-) (011)
> So I want to make sure that the context of what we are doing is
> understood, we are looking for real solutions that can be shown to
> solve real problems - like how we integrate languages like UML, BPMN,
> OWL, SQL, XSD, Business Architecture, EA, etc, into a more cohesive
> architectural environment. (012)
For real treatments of these languages' real semantics
(and hence their integration), some
basic issues will in the long term be difficult to avoid. But
there's a lot to do on the way and I am sure much will
be learnt (and benefitted) from more direct attempts at
solutions. (013)
John B. (014)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/sio-dev/
Join Community: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/sio-dev/
Unsubscribe: mailto:sio-dev-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/SIO/
Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SharingIntegratingOntologies (015)
|