[cuo-wg] Executable English cross domain examples online

["Adrian Walker" <adriandwalker@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jim --

Thanks for your note.

You wrote...

    EE [Executable English]
is a way to express semantics, as is OWL, Common Logic,
etc.   But if two groups use the same language but
independently develop an ontology, vocabulary, etc., then a computer
from one domain will not be be able to process/reason/inference with
data from the other domain.   In other words, a standard
language does not solve CDSI.   If you disagree, let's keep
discussing this point.  Yes, people could understand it, but CDSI
requires computers to process inputs.

Actually I thought this was addressed with the two examples [1,2] in a previous email:

[1]  shows how to write in EE the knowledge that people have about
how to bridge between metric data (kilometers per second) in stovepipe
A  and  non-metric data (miles per hour)  in 
stovepipe B.  It does this by choosing a canonical pivot
representation (metric), so that if there are N stovepipes
A,B,C...  at most 2N conversions written in EE will be needed to
make them all interoperate. 

[2]  shows how to write in EE the knowledge that people have about
how to bridge between the terminology used by a manufacturer A (Prof.
Desktop), and the terminology used for similar items (PC for gamers) by
a retailer B.  It does this by choosing a canonical pivot
representation in the form of a simple EE ontology whose upper levels
(Computers) are shared .   Thus if  there are N
stovepipes A,B,C...  at most 2N conversions written in EE will be
needed to make them all interoperate. 

So, in each of the cases [1,2] the scenario is like this. 
Stovepipe Z wishes to compute with data from Stovepipe B.  
This will be done via canonical representation C (it's optional whether
or not C is the actual representation used by any stovepipe.)  Z
tells EE what it wants.  EE maps that  into the canonical
representation C, and then maps it further into B's
representation.  B produces what's needed, but it's still in B's
representation.  EE maps it into representation C, and then into
representation Z.

I hope that  folks may have time to run the examples [1,2] to see
how they work.  There's nothing to install.  Just point a
browser to www.reengineeringllc.com .  Preferably Mozilla or
Firefox, but see also the "Browsers" page for the settings needed for
IE.

  So, since a standard language,
regardless of how expressive it is, cannot solve CDSI, EE should not be
listed as a Candidate Technical Solution for CDSI.  Is this
acceptable to you?

Well, I guess not.   Based on the discussion so far,  it
seems that EE at least supplies a challenge to see if other candidates
can do better.  One advantage for this purpose is that EE is an
implemented system that  anyone with a browser can run to see
if  it meets emerging CDSI test requirements.  In other
words, "EE is useful for CDSI" is a falsifiable hypothesis (which is
how science proceeds), and as such EE should not be discarded at this
stage.

You did send me an email suggesting
an upper model for EE.  First, I'm quite sure this isn't feasible
unless you're really talking about an upper ontology expressed in the
form of EE. 

Yes, I believe [2] is an example that most people would view as containing part of a simple upper ontology.

Second, to get people to consider
this approach, you would need to present your case  in a stronger
form, such as a well-thought-out paper, or demo, or group of
supporters, etc.

Glad to.  The papers [3,4] should serve as a good starting
point.   As mentioned, anyone can run the examples [1,2]
using the "demo" ID at www.reengineeringllc.com .   
There are many additional examples, including ones based on
EE-augmented OWL, RDF, and biomedical ontologies.   Folks are
cordially invited to use their browsers to write and run their own
examples. 

If you have some examples in mind, we can see whether or not EE can
cover them -- a few paras of English and some sample data should do
[7].  This can be done either on the www public "demo" ID, or on
an ID with restricted password access.

I hope this takes your observations properly into account.   Thanks for making me think!

If you'd like to proceed via phone, or have me do a  presentation (perhaps based on [5,6]), that would be great.

                                        
Best regards,  -- Adrian


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

[2] www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/SemanticResolution1.agent
 
[3]  www.tdan.com/i027hy04.htm

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

[5]  www.reengineeringllc.com/Internet_Business_Logic_e-Government_Presentation.pdf

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

[7]  For an example of a task outline, please see the last two paras on page 1 of
      www.reengineeringllc.com/Oil_Industry_Supply_Chain_by_Kowalski_and_Walker.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    (01)