RE: SUO: Why is IFF and the Lattice of Theories good for SUMO
Dear Adam,
Yes I do think you are being unreasonable!
From my exchanges with Robert I gather that they have developed the theory,
but not an implementation of it. This makes practica examples unrealistic
at this stage.
Of course I could put the boot on the other foot and challenge you to proove
that the IFF theory is not capable of a practical implementation capable of
mapping...
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: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
> Sent: 08 May 2003 15:31
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: SUO: Why is IFF and the Lattice of Theories good for SUMO
>
>
> Matthew,
> If it's really useful and practical, shouldn't it be
> straightforward to
> show a practical example of a mapping? I'm not questioning the
> feasibility, but the practicality. I'm not the only one to ask this
> question. Isn't it a fair question?
>
> Adam
>
> At 03:27 PM 5/8/2003 +0100, West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
> >Dear Adam,
> >
> >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: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
> > > Sent: 08 May 2003 13:57
> > > To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> > > Subject: RE: SUO: Why is IFF and the Lattice of Theories
> good for SUMO
> > >
> > >
> > > Matthew,
> > >
> > > At 09:00 AM 5/8/2003 +0100, West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
> > > >Dear Adam,
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > 1. What tools or methods can be demonstrated on a problem in
> > > > > mapping, and
> > > > > what are the advantages of one approach (as shown in an
> > > > > example), over another
> > > >
> > > >MW: In ordinary database systems mapping has been going on
> > > for more than
> > > >a decade. The maps between models are more usually known as
> > > interfaces,
> > > >and in Shell at least a survey showed in the mid 90's that
> > > they accounted
> > > >for 25-75% of the cost of new systems. Today there are
> > > systems that are
> > > >dedicated to managing iterfaces, they often go under the
> name of ETL
> > > >(Extract Translate Load) or EIA (Enterprise Integration
> Application).
> > > >Where the former is for batch/transaction data and the
> > > latter for online
> > > >federation of systems.
> > >
> > > I'm certainly not questioning the need for mapping databases.
> > > What I am
> > > asking is for someone to show IFF helping on a practical
> > > mapping problem,
> > > in order to demonstrate its utility or advantages over other
> > > approaches.
> >
> >MW: Category Theory is the science of mapping for all practical
> >purposes. How could it not help? It is like questioning whether
> >physics is useful for going to the moon.
> >
> >MW: I have to assume you have not spent much time on Category Theory.
> >For myself, I didn't even know it existed till it came up on
> this list.
> >But I have tried to learn a bit about it at least, and I am mighty
> >impressed. If you haven't taken a look, I strongly recommend setting
> >aside some time to get a grip of the basics.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Where are the particular concrete proposals of different
> > > > > theories? It's fine to mention that such may exist,
> and certainly
> > > > > different theories have been described in the literature,
> > > but until a
> > > > > particular one is proposed that replaces a defined portion of
> > > > > another, this
> > > > > seems rather speculative for me. One could define an
> > > > > alternative module
> > > > > for SUMO, but no one has done so. Has something of that sort
> > > > > been done in
> > > > > EPISTLE?
> > > >
> > > >MW: We have certainly made changes to the way that EPISTLE
> > > models change.
> > > >http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/Documents/InformationModelling
> >PDT2002.pdf
> > > >This brief paper gives an overview of how the two
> approaches relate to
> > > >each other. Many implementations are still using the old
> approach, and
> > > >for some purposes the old way may be better.
> > >
> > > thanks for the reference, I'll take a look
> > >
> > > Adam
>
>