I largely agree with these points that JohnS makes. (01)
-----Original Message-----
From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 11:36 AM
To: Uschold, Michael F; Upper Ontology Summit convention
Subject: RE: [uos-convene] Suggestions for structuring the Tu Mar 14
meeting (02)
Mike, (03)
There is no reason why they have to be disjoint: (04)
> I think Matthew, MichaelG and CHrisM are all right.
> You need axioms when you get into the details.
> You also want a high level diagram the conveys the main points, w/o
> gory details. (05)
Many people are quite happy with UML-style diagrams, and there is no
reason why formal translations from UML to CL can't be done. The reason
why such formal translations haven't been done is that "customers
haven't asked for them". (06)
The solution is to develop tools that translate UML diagrams into CLIF
and use that as the de facto standard for what UML means. To supplement
the diagrams, use a version of controlled English, such as CLCE or ACE. (07)
The CL model theory (or the subset called LBase) is already the standard
for OWL and RDF. If we adopt that for the other tools, we automatically
have a universal standard that lets people use any pet notation they
prefer. (08)
That's the proper way to develop interoperable standards:
start with the semantics, not the syntax. (09)
John (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit (011)
|