Re: [cuo-wg] Executable English vs FOL for all domains run timeinteroper

["Cory Casanave" <cory-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Adrian,

Sounds interesting!

 

Is EE a;

- Proprietary Product

- Standard

- Established open approach in some community

- Emerging open approach in some community

- Prototype

- Idea

 

I suggest we be clear about the above as we submit these options and that only non-proprietary approaches are eligible for consideration.

 

Also, it sounds a lot like the "business semantics of business rules" standard of OMG (http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?dtc/2006-08-05)- which takes a very structured English approach.  Do you know what the relationship is?

 

Thanks!

Cory Casanave

---

From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Walker
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 1:57 PM
To: Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6; common upper ontology working group
Subject: [cuo-wg] Executable English vs FOL for all domains run timeinteroperability

Hi Jim --

This is to try to address a little better how 
Executable English (EE) may help to answer your requirement for 2N 
interoperability over all compliant domains.

The EE approach for all 
compliant domains would be to find a canonical, pivot  body of knowledge so 
as to get to 2N, and to represent the knowledge in EE rather than FOL. (But see 
below for the automatic, bi-directional mapping between EE and FOL).

For 
example, in

  www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/OntologyInterop2.agent

a 
canonical set of units is chosen.  Then, anyone using other units must use 
the suggested adapters to map to the canonical units.  This is 2N.  
The agent computes the adapters that are needed.

As another 
example,  in
 
   www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/SemanticResolution1.agent

anyone 
wishing to do business must have an adapter (2N again) that  maps his or 
her internal terminology to a more general, canonical "upper"  set of 
terms.  So, in this example, the pivot is a taxonomic hierarchy.

EE 
is automatically mapped into and out of an FOL-like notation for 
inference.  But that's done inside a black box called Internet Business 
Logic, which also does the inference, and provides the English explanations of 
what's going on.   It gets scalability by automatically generating and 
running networked SQL "under the covers".  

So, as an analogy, EE is 
to FOL as Java is to Assembly Language.  In this analogy, the Internet 
Business Logic system corresponds to a Java compiler.

Hope this makes 
sense.  If folks have time to run some examples**, comments would be much 
appreciated.  You can write and run your own examples 
too.

                                              
Thanks,   -- Adrian

**  Just point a browser to www.reengineeringllc.com and click on 
Internet Business Logic.  The system works better with Mozilla or Firefox 
than with IE.  For IE, the "browsers" page has some suggested 
settings.

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    (01)