> To whatextent do you think that open sourcing the Internet Business
> Logicsystem would solve the proprietaryness problem? (01)
Its not open sourceness that affects govt purchases. Its lack of a standard.
Govt is getting dead serious about standards, certainly at the OSD/OMB levels
I'm familiar with, arguably less so at lower levels where the Windoze
affliction got its foothold. As far as I can see, proprietary systems is still
the norm and likely to remain so indefinitely. Open source is still viewed
with suspicion in many govt circles, but is slowly catching on. (02)
--
Work: Brad Cox, Ph.D; Binary Group; Mail bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Home: 703 361 4751; Chat brdjcx@aim; Web http://virtualschool.edu (03)
---------- Original Message -----------
From: "Adrian Walker" <adriandwalker@xxxxxxxxx>
To: bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "common upper ontology working group"
<cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:20:12 -0500
Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] Executable English vs FOL for all domains run time
interoperability (04)
> Hi Brad --
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> As I understand it, you raise two main issues.
>
> 1. Is it really English?
>
> 2. Propriatryness
>
> I'll try to address these in order.
>
> 1. Is it really English?
>
> You say that Executable English is "based on english only in the sense that
> Java, Objective-C and Cobol are" and "this is as much english as cobol was,
> albeit with less procedural, more rule-oriented semantics"
>
> Well, I guess a key question is whether it's useful for current purposes,
> rather than whether or not it's like Cobol.
>
> (By the way, changing the order of the rules does not change what is
> derivable -- a rule just means what it says. This is a different rule
> semantics from any other I know about, and arguably better for current
> purposes.)
>
> So, getting back to "like Cobol"..... I don't see anyone proposing to do
> ontology-based interoperability in Cobol. The language of choice so far
> seems to be some flavor of FOL.
>
> As mentioned, the Internet Business Logic system maps EE automatically to
> and from an internal FOL-like notation. The hoped for advantage of writing
> in EE rather than in FOL is that person B will have a better chance of
> actually understanding what person A wrote. (It's famously difficult to
> stare at a complex FOL expression and make an accurate English gloss of what
> it's supposed to mean). One could think of EE as just a good way
> documenting FOL, and making sure that the documentation and the FOL never
> get out of step. It also provides support for explanations for
> non-technical users.
>
> A curious property of the approach is that EE is somewhat agnostic about
> what you write. So, if you actually need to write more or less directly in
> executable FOL, you can do so. For example, in
>
> www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/RelBioOntDefn3.agent
>
> there are rules such as
>
> some-C and some-C1 are two different Non-process classes with instances
> not : (E c,t) [ that-C c t and not (E c1) [ that-C1 c1 t and c part_of c1 at
> t ] ]
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> (A c,t) [ that-C c t => (E c1) [ that-C1 c1 t and c part_of c1 at t ] ]
>
> You are welcome to run the agent. Of course, the resulting explanations
> will be mainly of interest to technical folks who know how to read this sort
> of stuff.
>
> 2. Propriatryness
>
> You wrote "People are sensitive to proprietary languages/compilers because
> they're locked to that language and that vendor by the programs they write."
>
> Agreed, propriatryness is a problem for many folks. It's hopefully
> mitigated by having the Internet Business Logic system available free for
> shared use on the web, as opposed to shrink wrap or fee-for-download. (As
> mentioned, I have suggested that the language could be of interest for a
> W3C standard **. If that happened, there would then be different
> implementations of the standard, and presumably some of them would be
> proprietary, with competition on inference speed and other features.)
>
> "wiki pages are just text that can be exported if need be and used anywhere"
>
> An EE file can be copy-pasted and used anywhere -- used in the sense of
> documentation that has actually been tested. It's a fairly easy task to
> translate the file manually into FOL. (The reverse translation can be quite
> difficult.)
>
> I hope the above helps with the issues you rightly raise. To what extent do
> you think that open sourcing the Internet Business Logic system would solve
> the proprietaryness problem?
>
> Cheers, -- Adrian
>
> ** www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/19
>
> Adrian Walker
> Reengineering
> Phone: USA 860 830 2085
>
> On 11/17/06, Brad Cox, Ph.D. <bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Adrian, please help me understand. I don't see why this isn't a
> > proprietary
> > language with web-accessible demo compiler that is based on english only
> > in
> > the sense that Java, Objective-C and Cobol are.
> >
> > People are sensitive to proprietary languages/compilers because they're
> > locked
> > to that language and that vendor by the programs they write. The wiki
> > issue
> > isn't germane because wiki pages are just text that can be exported if
> > need be
> > and used anywhere, which isn't the case with source code. There might be
> > an
> > issue if we were using its semantic capabilities to build significant
> > ontologies, but we're not using it that way and I know of no plans to.
> >
> > I mean by all that that this is as much english as cobol was, albeit with
> > less
> > procedural, more rule-oriented semantics:
> >
> > person some-CID some-name is classified in driver eligibility as Young
> > Driver
> > person that-CID that-name has Marital Status Single in his or her
> > description
> > not : person that-CID that-name resides in a state that is exceptional for
> > driver premium purposes
> >
> >
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > person that-CID that-name is subject to a $ 300 premium increase
> >
> > This isn't to be confrontation; just trying to understand.
> >
> > --
> > Work: Brad Cox, Ph.D; Binary Group; Mail bcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Home: 703 361 4751; Chat brdjcx@aim; Web http://virtualschool.edu
> >
> >
> > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > From: "Adrian Walker" <adriandwalker@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "common upper ontology working group" <cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Cory
> > Casanave" <cbc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Schoening, James R C-E LCMC
> > CIO/G6"
> > <James.Schoening@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:44:15 -0500
> > Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] Executable English vs FOL for all domains run time
> > interoperability
> >
> > > Hi Cory --
> > >
> > > Wow, some good questions within ten minutes of posting! (:-)
> > >
> > > I'll try to answer them one by one.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Is EE...
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, EE is the language, and Internet Business Logic is the thing that
> > > computes with it.
> > >
> > > So, is Internet Business Logic a
> > >
> > > > - Proprietary Product?
> > > >
> > >
> > > only in the sense that the Wiki we are using for CDSI is also a
> > pp. That
> > > is, anyone on the web can write (and run) their own material by pointing
> > a
> > > browser to the shared area, and the material is then open to anyone on
> > the
> > > Web. As befits a Wiki, shared use is free.
> > >
> > > - Standard?
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, but I've suggested to W3C that it would speed up adoption of the
> > > Semantic Web. Please see
> > > www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/19
> > >
> > > - Established open approach in some community?
> > > >
> > > - Emerging open approach in some community?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Early days yet. Maybe it will in time become an established, semi-open
> > > approach in this community.
> > >
> > > - Prototype?
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's at Beta.
> > >
> > > - Idea?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Implemented system, live online. The first publication of the ideas
> > that
> > > led to the system was back in 1981 (!). There are over 20 papers since
> > > then, some of them in refereed publications, such as
> > > "Backchain Iteration: Towards a Practical Inference Method that is
> > Simple
> > > Enough to be Proved Terminating, Sound and Complete". Journal of
> > Automated
> > > Reasoning, 11:1-22
> > >
> > > I suggest we be clear about the above as we submit these options and
> > that
> > > > only non-proprietary approaches are eligible for consideration.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hmm. Would that, in your view, also rule out the use of the
> > current CDSI
> > > Wiki -- as Peter Yim has suggested?
> > >
> > > > 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?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Glad you asked. There is a Business Rules and OMG SBVR Presentation
> > --
> > > www.reengineeringllc.com/Business_Rules_and_OMG_SBVR_Presentation.pdf .
> > > (Jim -- would that presentation be of interest for a conference call?)
> > >
> > > In particular, EE differs from other approaches in that the vocabulary
> > is
> > > open, and there is no external dictionary construction required, yet the
> > > English semantics are strict. The English syntax is also mostly
> > open. This
> > > means that one can freely use things like government acronyms, jargon
> > > syntax, and so on. There's a trade off, of course, that one can
> > evaluate by
> > > using the system.
> > >
> > > (As you may know, brittleness, and related requirements for dictionary
> > and
> > > grammar maintenance appear to have kept most natural language query
> > systems
> > > away from major commercial and government use.)
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for the good questions!
> > >
> > > Adrian Walker
> > > Reengineering
> > > Phone: USA 860 830 2085
> > >
> > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
------- End of Original Message ------- (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|