SUO: RE: RE: CAD "data models", "FOL type stuff" and translators
A database of well-represented geometric shapes would be very
useful in an SUO, so I am interested to know more about Bill
Burkett's remark:
> 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.
>
specifically, is there a good on-line set of geometric representations
that is public domain or close to it? I don't know the use restrictions
of an ISO standard -- would any part of that standard per se be usable in
a free SUO?
Pat Cassidy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org]On Behalf Of
> WBurkett@pdit.com
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 2:52 PM
> To: 'mfu@redwood.rt.cs.boeing.com'
> Cc: SUO (E-mail)
> Subject: 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
>
============================================================================
This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) and may
contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not
the intended recipient, dissemination of this communication is prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies
of the message and its attachments and notify postmaster@verticalnet.com
immediately.
============================================================================