SUO: Re: Discussion Period on Motion by Matthew West
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Matthew West wrote:
>
> Dear Jon,
>
> See comments below.
JA: 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...
Actually, I wasn't even getting the pics, probably because
I still prefer using my old Netscape 4.7 for everyday work,
but just for you I will look at it under 7.0 and see what
I can see ...
Okay, there they are ...
> 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.
Okay, but I will probably stick to the text, so I can keep better track of
what sorts of statements would go in the actual theory, and what is more
like logical infrastructure that is taken for granted by many theories,
and what is just comment.
> 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.
Oddly enough, I grew up in oil. My dad was a roughneck
who worked his way up to toolpusher and my brother was
a well-logger for many years. (Texas oil dialect).
> > 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.
I have a general interest in intelligent control systems,
but I never found those 3d/4d discussions very helpful.
When I think about these things in systems theory terms,
it always starts with some state space X that contains
all of the logically possible states of the system you
want to think about. Your first stab at dealing with
process will then be in terms of a "path" p : R -> X,
where R is a real line that you think of as the time
domain. Physical laws and practical constraints are
then expressed as subsets of X and subsets of the
set {p : R -> X} of all possible paths through X.
Just as a subset of X corresponds to an indicator function q : X -> B,
where B is the boolean domain -- here, q is the sort of thing that is
convenient to think of as a "proposition about X" -- constraints on
paths p : R -> X can often be expressed through the intermediary
of other functions that one builds up from X, R, and B.
Now, my question is: Can I think of a possible_individual as being
associated with such a path p : R -> X through such a state space X?
NB. In the beginning, X is really the state space of the whole system.
It can be a tricky matter to say whether X decomposes into some form of
composite, but let's start with the easy case, where X = X_1 x ... x X_k,
a cartesian product of component state spaces X_j for j = 1 to k, and X_j
is the state space of the j^th component subsystem. Then let us suppose
that we are talking about one of these ostensibly independent components,
and read what I asked above with X_j in for X.
Rephrasing the question: Can I think of a possible_individual as being
associated with such a path p : R -> X_j through such a state space X_j?
> 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:
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/Documents/princ03.pdf
Okay, will look into it.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> > 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
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o