RE: SUO: Why is IFF and the Lattice of Theories good for SUMO
Matthew,
At 09:13 AM 5/9/2003 +0100, West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
>Dear Adam,
>
>Yes I do think you are being unreasonable!
>
> >From my exchanges with Robert I gather that they have developed the theory,
>but not an implementation of it. This makes practica examples unrealistic
>at this stage.
>
>Of course I could put the boot on the other foot and challenge you to proove
>that the IFF theory is not capable of a practical implementation capable of
>mapping...
I've never said that it isn't possible that IFF could be helpful. But
absent any examples it seems speculative at best compared to other
published work such as ISI's Ontomorph or the work of Gio Wiederhold and
his students. In any case, since you feel that asking for an example is
not reasonable I guess we're stuck.
In that past I've provided examples of useful reasoning involving SUMO and
would be glad to do so again, just to make clear that this request applies
to myself as well.
Adam
>Matthew West
>Principal Consultant
>Shell Information Technology International Limited
>Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
>
>Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
>Email: matthew.west@shell.com
>Internet: http://www.shell.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
> > Sent: 08 May 2003 15:31
> > To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: SUO: Why is IFF and the Lattice of Theories good for SUMO
> >
> >
> > Matthew,
> > If it's really useful and practical, shouldn't it be
> > straightforward to
> > show a practical example of a mapping? I'm not questioning the
> > feasibility, but the practicality. I'm not the only one to ask this
> > question. Isn't it a fair question?
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > At 03:27 PM 5/8/2003 +0100, West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
> > >Dear Adam,
> > >
> > >See comments below.
> > >
> > >
> > >Matthew West
> > >Principal Consultant
> > >Shell Information Technology International Limited
> > >Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
> > >
> > >Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
> > >Email: matthew.west@shell.com
> > >Internet: http://www.shell.com
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
> > > > Sent: 08 May 2003 13:57
> > > > To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> > > > Subject: RE: SUO: Why is IFF and the Lattice of Theories
> > good for SUMO
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Matthew,
> > > >
> > > > At 09:00 AM 5/8/2003 +0100, West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
> > > > >Dear Adam,
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > 1. What tools or methods can be demonstrated on a problem in
> > > > > > mapping, and
> > > > > > what are the advantages of one approach (as shown in an
> > > > > > example), over another
> > > > >
> > > > >MW: In ordinary database systems mapping has been going on
> > > > for more than
> > > > >a decade. The maps between models are more usually known as
> > > > interfaces,
> > > > >and in Shell at least a survey showed in the mid 90's that
> > > > they accounted
> > > > >for 25-75% of the cost of new systems. Today there are
> > > > systems that are
> > > > >dedicated to managing iterfaces, they often go under the
> > name of ETL
> > > > >(Extract Translate Load) or EIA (Enterprise Integration
> > Application).
> > > > >Where the former is for batch/transaction data and the
> > > > latter for online
> > > > >federation of systems.
> > > >
> > > > I'm certainly not questioning the need for mapping databases.
> > > > What I am
> > > > asking is for someone to show IFF helping on a practical
> > > > mapping problem,
> > > > in order to demonstrate its utility or advantages over other
> > > > approaches.
> > >
> > >MW: Category Theory is the science of mapping for all practical
> > >purposes. How could it not help? It is like questioning whether
> > >physics is useful for going to the moon.
> > >
> > >MW: I have to assume you have not spent much time on Category Theory.
> > >For myself, I didn't even know it existed till it came up on
> > this list.
> > >But I have tried to learn a bit about it at least, and I am mighty
> > >impressed. If you haven't taken a look, I strongly recommend setting
> > >aside some time to get a grip of the basics.
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Where are the particular concrete proposals of different
> > > > > > theories? It's fine to mention that such may exist,
> > and certainly
> > > > > > different theories have been described in the literature,
> > > > but until a
> > > > > > particular one is proposed that replaces a defined portion of
> > > > > > another, this
> > > > > > seems rather speculative for me. One could define an
> > > > > > alternative module
> > > > > > for SUMO, but no one has done so. Has something of that sort
> > > > > > been done in
> > > > > > EPISTLE?
> > > > >
> > > > >MW: We have certainly made changes to the way that EPISTLE
> > > > models change.
> > > > >http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/Documents/InformationModelling
> > >PDT2002.pdf
> > > > >This brief paper gives an overview of how the two
> > approaches relate to
> > > > >each other. Many implementations are still using the old
> > approach, and
> > > > >for some purposes the old way may be better.
> > > >
> > > > thanks for the reference, I'll take a look
> > > >
> > > > Adam
> >
> >