At 02:33 PM 11/26/2005, Smith, Barry wrote: (01)
We have been discussing the issue of whether ISO 15926 (the oil and
gas, etc., ontology): (02)
<http://www.tc184-sc4.org/wg3ndocs/wg3n1328/lifecycle_integration_schema.html>http://www.tc184-sc4.org/wg3ndocs/wg3n1328/lifecycle_integration_schema.html (03)
can express simple inferences involving relations. (04)
Matthew responds: (05)
> >MW: I understand your difficulty because you are used to different
> >formalisms. I have a sub-relation that has a relationship to the two
> >objects that you relate. I can see by inspection, that if I join (in
> >relational terms) my two relations I get yours. (06)
Matthew has since sent me further documentation from his secret
store, in which it does indeed seem that he can say some of the
things we need to say, but only on a very broad reading of 'say',
since the documentation he sent me consists primarily of diagrams. It
is not clear that there is some sort of logical representation
underlying these diagrams. What is clear, already from the above
website, is that most of the formalism presented in the 15926
ontology is idiosyncratic. (07)
The problem with using an idiosyncratic formalism, i.e. a formalism
which (on the face of it, at least) relates to none of the things
most other people in the world of ontology development are doing, is
that, particularly for incompetent persons like me, there is a very
steep learning curve, which I illustrate by considering some of the
entities the ontology lists. (08)
Note again: much of the apparent nonsense in what follows almost
certainly from my own failure to understand the documents which have
been made available on the web. Perhaps there are further companion
documents somewhere, which will throw the needed light on the points
discussed. But in any case, my failures in understanding will, I
hope, bring the advantage that they can teach us lessons about the
general principles which a good ontology should satisfy. (09)
FIRST GENERAL LESSON
THE PRINCIPLE OF OPENNESS: A GOOD ONTOLOGY SHOULD HAVE NO SECRET BITS
AND ALL ITS FEATURES SHOULD BE EXPLAINABLE IN WRITING
----------------------------------
Consider, to get us going, the following sample entry from the 15926 ontology: (010)
class_of_cause_of_beginning_of_class_of_individual
DEFINITION: A <class_of_cause_of_beginning_of_class_of_individual> is
a <class_of_relationship> that indicates that a member of a
<class_of_activity> causes the beginning of a member of a
<class_of_individual>. (011)
(Note that there is no 'cause_of_beginning_of_individual' in the ontology.) (012)
The term in question suggests that we are to focus ourselves instead
on the causes of beginnings of classes. Yet the definition (in its
strange, roundabout way) seems to be about the causes of the
beginnings of individuals nonetheless (i.e. it is about the members
of the class of individuals). (This is good, because the "Note 1"
provided in the entry for 'class' suggests, indeed, that classes do
not have beginnings, so that there could not literally be a
<class_of_cause_of_beginning_of_class_of_individual>.) (013)
TO SEE THE REST OF THIS POST (WARNING: IT IS VERY LONG) GO HERE:
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/west.htm#Continues (014)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (015)
|