SUO: RE: Lifecycle Integration Schema
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 21:45
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; SUO
> Subject: Re: Lifecycle Integration Schema
>
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> LIS. Discussion Note 3
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> Matthew,
>
> Deleting points adequately covered for now.
>
> Re: "thing"
>
> http://www.tc184-sc4.org/wg3ndocs/wg3n1328/lifecycle_integrati
> on_schema/lexical/thing.html
>
> Summary of what went before:
>
> You called these texts "normative":
>
> LIS: | A <thing> is anything that is or may be thought about
> or perceived,
> | including material and non-material objects, ideas,
> and actions.
>
> LIS: | Every <thing> is either
> | a <possible_individual>,
> | or an <abstract_object>.
>
> And you explained:
>
> MW: In ISO standards there are two types of text:
>
> Normative and Informative.
>
> The normative text indicates what must be conformed to by
> an implementation. The informative text is other material
> (here NOTES and EXAMPLES) that provide additional information
> that may help understanding, but do not have to be conformed to.
>
> I will try to remember this usage, but it's not very natural to me.
>
> Logic is called a normative science because it's supposed to give us
> good advice about how we "should" conduct our reasoning, but only if
> we desire to achieve the ordinarily understood purposes of reasoning.
>
> The ISO usage of normative is more like what I'd call "prescriptive".
>
> But we are supposed to be dealing with theories about an
> independent reality.
> If we write "every <thing> is either a <particle> or a
> <wave>, but not both",
> and make that an obligatory usage in some community, then
> that's one thing,
> but the reality that we are trying to describe may not
> conform to our norm.
> On the other hand, the statement is informative in the sense
> that it makes
> a non-trivial claim, in the context of the usual additional
> axioms about
> <particle> and <wave>, and so it's a theory that can be
> falsified by our
> old friend/nemesis "recalcitrant experience". And that's a
> good thing.
> At least, if you consider the alternative.
MW: Fine.
>
> Re: | A <thing> is anything that is or may be thought about
> or perceived,
> | including material and non-material objects, ideas, and actions.
>
> JA: I still cannot see it as a definition,
> but it's okay to begin with undefined
> primitives, and statements of their
> relations to other terms, defined
> or otherwise.
>
> MW: Fine. That is part of what needs to be fixed, but I still
> expect the result to be a primitive. Most of our entity
> types probably are.
>
> Re: | Every <thing> is either
> | a <possible_individual>,
> | or an <abstract_object>.
>
> JA: This is an informative statement.
>
> MW: But normative in standards terms.
>
> JA: By "informative", I just mean that it conveys information.
> That is, the statement expresses a constraint among the
> things to which it and its component terms apply.
>
> MW: OK Culture clash, but I understand you.
>
> Re: | NOTE 1. Every <thing> is identifiable within a system.
> | System identifiers created by other systems and received
> | as part of a data exchange may be stored for future reference
> | as an identification, referring to the originating organisation
> | or system.
>
> JA: You are saying that you are really only thinking about things
> that have identifiers in given system, or names in a certain
> context of discussion. This is very significant and needs to
> be elevated to the level of an explicit principle, instead of
> being left implicit in a note that is likely to be neglected,
> in other words, relegated to a hidden axiom or constraint
> whose consequences are not critically reflected on.
MW: I think it is more that we are saying that if you want to say
something about an object under this standard, you have to be
prepared to give that object an identifier. This is a practical
rather than philosophical statement. You will find elsewhere under
representation a quite general approach to identification. Providing
this "system unique identifier" was more a piece of practical design.
I.e. philosophically you can ignore it.
>
> MW: Firstly NOTEs and EXAMPLEs are informative in standards terms.
>
> JA: I probably need a definition of what you mean by "informative".
> It sounds like you are saying "not definitive" or "optional".
> The way I see it, if it's not avoidable, it's not optional.
>
> MW: See above.
>
> JA: However we gloss it, I am trying to indicate a potential risk of
> misinterpretation, of being taken to mean something that is very
> different from what one really intends, and there is a potential
> danger of, well, glossing over this point if we don't keep all
> the constraints and intentions in plain view. There is also
> an efficiency loss that comes from trying to do more than
> one really needs.
>
> MW: A data model is to support the holding of data about things.
> Here we are noting that different systems that might wish to
> communicate about some thing may have their own identifier
> for it, and that this is not a problem.
>
> Exactly. I am just saying that you are making some significant
> assumptions about the relations of signs to things that need to
> be made more explicit if they are going to be dealt with more
> effectively in a computational/logical framework.
MW: For how we deal generally with signs, I suggest you look in
the representation area, Diagrams 16-20.
>
> Re: | NOTE 2. Every example provided for other entity data types
> | declared in this schema is also an example of <thing>.
>
> JA: Okay for now, as long as it's just a comment.
>
> MW: It is, see above.
>
> JA: This is beginning to worry me more.
> We may need a way of formalizing
> how seriously comments need to
> be taken.
>
> MW: There is one. A standard declares whether each clause
> and annex is normative or informative. Within normative
> annexes, informative material is given in NOTES or EXAMPLES.
> This material is taken from a normative clause in the standard.
>
> Will think on't, but have to break for now.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
>