Dear Barry, (01)
Thank you for taking the trouble to offer this critique. We will look
at the points you raise and respond in due course. (02)
In the mean time I would appreciate answers to the questions I raised
on your paper. I did not ask them simply for effect or to be awkward,
but because I would be interested in the answers. (03)
Regards (04)
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom (05)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (06)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontac-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Smith, Barry
> Sent: 27 November 2005 17:49
> To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion; ONTAC-WG General Discussion
> Subject: [ontac-forum] Against Idiosyncrasy in Ontology Development
>
>
> At 02:33 PM 11/26/2005, Smith, Barry wrote:
>
> We have been discussing the issue of whether ISO 15926 (the oil and
> gas, etc., ontology):
>
> <http://www.tc184-sc4.org/wg3ndocs/wg3n1328/lifecycle_integrat
> ion_schema.html>http://www.tc184-sc4.org/wg3ndocs/wg3n1328/lif
> ecycle_integration_schema.html
>
> can express simple inferences involving relations.
>
> Matthew responds:
>
> > >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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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:
>
> 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>.
>
> (Note that there is no 'cause_of_beginning_of_individual' in
> the ontology.)
>
> 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>.)
>
> TO SEE THE REST OF THIS POST (WARNING: IT IS VERY LONG) GO HERE:
> http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/west.htm#Continues
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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 (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|