SUO: RE: Discussion Period on Motion by Matthew West
Dear Jon,
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: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@att.net]
> Sent: 01 September 2003 11:41
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> Cc: SUO; Jim Schoening
> Subject: Re: Discussion Period on Motion by Matthew West
>
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> Matthew,
>
> I have some trouble with these hypertext presentations --
> it's always a little bit like looking at the directory
> on somebody else's machine -- I pick a term of interest
> and try to follow its involvements and pretty soon find
> myself completely lost ...
MW: Let me try to mark your card for going through the
model. I agree it is easy to get lost.
1. The diagrams are arranged to introduce concepts in
as logical an order as possible, given we are looking
at a network. Go through them starting with diagram 1...
2. On a diagram there are mostly 3 types of shape.
a) yellow boxes (entity types) - these are the focus
of the diagram. Click on them to see the definition
and other information.
b) Pink off page connectors. Generally ignore those.
You will come across the other end in due course.
They are links to concepts the yellow box is important
in defining.
c) Brown off page connectors. (matches a pink off page
connector) These link to concepts that are important
in the definition of a yellow box (entity type). If
the name is not sufficiently evocative, click on it
and you will be taken to a diagram where the concept
is a yellow box, and you can see the definition.
Come straight back afterwards or you will get lost
quickly.
3. We've tried to provide examples with all the
definitions. Often I suspect these are more useful
than the definitions themselves.
>
> Could you tell us what a typical application is like
> and what your ontology does for you in such a setting?
MW: The idea is to be an integration model, i.e. provide
a data model into which any data about anything can be
translated. This to support exchange between applications
and organisations. A specific application is to bring
together the engineering data for an off shore oil rig
produced during design and construction and hand it over
to the owner operator to be put into the many and various
(and different) operating systems.
>
> Could you pick out a few terms or concepts that you think
> are especially important and tell us how defining them the
> way you do is critical to success in practical applications?
possible_individual is probably the most important concept,
and making it a 4D definition. What is really important is
not that anyone can model what they want how they want, but
that everyone can translate their own information into a
single view that is unambiguous, and open to as few
interpretations as possible. Equally it is important that
the model should have a way of saying anything. It is the
inability to state what you mean accurately that leads to
the abuse of data model structures to accomodate data with
an implicit meaning.
>
> Given the variety of different ideas about data models that
> we've seen,
> it might also help if you could say a few words about how you
> see them.
MW: The structure and meaning of data, is the few words version.
A longer version can be found in:
www.matthew-west.org.uk/Documents/princ03.pdf
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> jim.s3@juno.com wrote:
> >
> > All,
> > Matthew West's motion has been seconded. We will now have a
> > discussion period (already started) for no less than
> 2-weeks, but as long
> > as needed.
> >
> > Jon questions whether a formal vote is needed.
> Technically, it
> > is not, but we would need clear consensus (absent any
> objections) to make
> > a group decision without such a vote.
> >
> > Jim Schoening
> >
> > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> > I will second, but I had the impression that
> > John Sowa's earlier motion, that was passed,
> > made it possible to include new documents
> > by acclamation or at least by some means
> > other than a formal vote.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> >
> > jim.s3@juno.com wrote:
> > >
> > > SUO WG Voting Members,
> > >
> > > The below message, Matthew posted earlier today, is
> intended to be a motion.
> > >
> > > Is there a second? (Just one needed, please)
> > >
> > > Jim Schoening
> > >
> > >
> > > --------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <matthew.west@shell.com>
> > > To: "Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)"
> > <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
> > > Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:19:29 +0100
> > > Subject: SUO: Proposal for Starter Content
> > >
> > > Dear Colleagues,
> > >
> > > You will be aware that I have been involved in developing the
> > > EPISTLE Core Model, a data model that constitutes a 4 dimensional
> > > upper ontology, which is being standardised as ISO 15926-2. This
> > > has now reached the stage of being published for its Final Draft
> > > International Standard ballot.
> > >
> > > I would therefore like to take this opportunity to propose
> > > it as starter content for the Standard Upper Ontology.
> > >
> > > The full document will be available shortly from your local
> > > (national) standards body or ISO. However, the formal model
> > > is available on the web in browsable html form at:
> > >
> >
http://www.tc184-sc4.org/wg3ndocs/wg3n1328/lifecycle_integration_schema.html
> <http://www.tc184-sc4.org/wg3ndocs/wg3n1328/lifecycle_integration_schema.html>
> >
> > It is written in EXPRESS, an ISO standard data modelling language
> > that is defined in ISO 10303-11.
> >
> > I should say that my intent/hope for future development may include translation
> > into a Description Logic language (OWL?) or First Order Logic language and the
> > addition of further axioms than those that are part of the structure of the
> > data model, together with inclusion within the IFF framework together with
> > other upper ontologies with different foundations.
> >
> > What I am not sure of is where we have got to with how we propose
> > content to be formally considered part of our work here.
> >
> > 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
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o