SUO: RE: CAD "data models", "FOL type stuff" and translators
Mike:
(The "said" you cited was actually Matthew West, not Phil Jackson, but
whatever.)
I've been involved in the work of TC184/SC4 since 1984 and CAD data exchange
since 1982 and lived with the issues/concerns that you touch on here for
what seems like my entire adult life. From this perspective, I'd like to
comment on a few of your observations:
> The cost of translation to large manufacturing companies like Boeing,
> RollsRoyce, Ford etc is EENNOORRMMOOUUSS!!
A-MEN to that!!
What I wonder about is whether this job is any different - or how is it
different - than the perceived application/use of the SUO.
> By the way, this issues arises over and over in many domains - another
is
> Geographical Information Systems. It would seem that an SUO could
provide
> considerable value, if someone could figure out how to do it.
You are right - the GIS people have been looking into this problem for a
long time and have a long history as well. What is interesting about their
work is the "flavor" that permeats their work. They are the only
researchers in this area that explicitly address the
cognitive/linguistic/social factors involved in "meaning" and
"understanding" data. (Which is precisely the drum that I keep beating.)
>Others attempt to build neutral formats, in hopes of addressing
> the number of translators being O(n-squared) vs O(n).
The problem is actually worse than this. If you consider multiplexed
relationships among n data sources you get a combinatoric explosion of
interfaces required. (Multiplexed: Translating data from 2 data sources
into a third is not equivalent to two binary translations from each source
into the third.)
>This would seem an
> obvious place for a 'upper' geometry ontology (UGO), from which a standard
CAD
> format could be specified. What is interesting, is that no-one in this
area
> seems to know or care about 'ontologies'.
Not entirely true - there are those like Matthew and myself that trying to
bridge the gap. :-)
>I have an impression that the neutral formats in this area, in some cases,
are not so much
> carefully thought out rationalized models of the domain, but rather more
like
> 'representational dumpsters' which have one of everything.
This is not really true in the CAD data exchange world. Speaking
specifically of ISO 10303-42 ("CAD" geometry), the representation of
geometry is very well thought-out and is based on CAD geometry data exchange
experience dating back the 70's. It has a small number of representations
that are very concrete, unambiguous, and relatively free from numeric
inaccuracies that are caused by ASCII representation of numbers.
You are correct, however, that there is no abstract, upper ontology for the
geometry definitions.
> This is probably slightly off the topic of SUO, but if there are any folk
who
> have this as a core interest, and would like to have a discussion, please
let
> me know who you are. I will collect names and respond back in time. I
suggest
> that you email ME only, not the SUO group, there is already far too much
> volume...
Please include me and I apologize for adding to the volume.
Bill