Re: [cuo-wg] Interop Wider Technology Focus

["Adrian Walker" <adriandwalker@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Marian --

Thanks for your comments, below.

Actually, I think we are more or less on the same page, in the sense
that  we agree on the functionality that is required.  It's
then just a question of agreeing on what kinds of things should live
under the "ontology" umbrella [1].

We would be quite happy for our executable English business rules to be
included under the heading "ontology" [2,3].  However, for many
people, that's stretching the term a bit. 

By the way, there's been a representation shift from the usual
"simplified English" approach to the design of our system.  Our
business rules are open vocabulary, and largely open syntax.  
The approach is lightweight, and does not require dictionary
maintenance, yet the English semantics are strict [2,4].  One can
use the system to manage and reason about controlled vocabularies, but
the vocabulary for the rules is unlimited.

I hope this makes sense.  If you'd like to chat about this off-list, please let me know.

                                                        
-- Adrian

[1]  www.semantic-conference.com/program/sessions/S2.html

[2] www.reengineeringllc.com/A_Wiki_for_Business_Rules_in_Open_Vocabulary_Executable_English.pdf

[3]  www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/OntologyInterop2.agent

[4]  www.reengineeringllc.com/Business_Rules_and_OMG_SBVR_Presentation.pdf


Internet Business Logic (R)
Executable open vocabulary English
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
Shared use is free

Adrian Walker
Reengineering
Phone: USA 860 830 2085

On 10/17/06, Marian Nodine <nodine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Adrian --

I would argue, from a different perspective, that at least the business rules, and possibly what the applications do with the CUO terms, should be representable directly in the ontology.

Semantics encompasses not only the concept, but the semantics of how it is represented, and the semantics of how it relates to other things (including what uses it.). For example, I should be able in the ontology to represent not only the concept of a temperature, but also the concept of degrees fahrenheit (and how it relates to degrees Celsius), and the concept that this is a temperature measurement reported for the weather at a particular location at a particular point in time (and thus may not be related to,  say, an engine temperature for a car). If this information is representable using ontological terms, it already is transparent and auditable.

This, by the way, does not mean that I personally object to simplified English rules. I have seen a couple of simplified English systems, and they are useful, and the users tend to be able to relate to them better. I think the simplified English should be tied to an ontology, though.

-- Marian Nodine

Adrian Walker wrote:

Hi All --

Adrian Walker here, newbie to the group.

As James said, there is exciting new technology out there, but how do we make it solve the interop problems?

I'd humbly suggest  that , while a CUO may be a necessary  component for interop, it will not be sufficient.  The technology focus should therefore be wider.

This is argued in general terms in [1,2] .  The basic idea is that part of the essential semantics is hidden in application code -- what will applications do with CUO terms -- and that technology to make that part transparent and auditable, at the business level, is needed.

I'm sure there will be lots of good discussion around this and other topics.  Just wanted to get my 2 cents in early.

                                              -- Adrian

[1]  http://www.semantic-conference.com/program/sessions/S2.html

[2]  http://www.reengineeringllc.com/A_Wiki_for_Business_Rules_in_Open_Vocabulary_Executable_English.pdf

Internet Business Logic (R)
Executable open vocabulary English
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
Shared use is free

Adrian Walker
Reengineering
Phone: USA 860 830 2085

 _________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: 
http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/

To Post: mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: 
http://colab.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/

Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG


  

 _________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
To Post: mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG

 _________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
To Post: mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG    (01)