1 © 2006 Adam Pease, Articulate Software - apease [at] articulatesoftware [dot] com Perspectives on UOS Adam Pease Articulate Software

2 © 2006 Adam Pease, Articulate Software - apease [at] articulatesoftware [dot] com Pursuit of Rigor in Data Standards Old-style (most common) standards specifications: (ISO 14258, Requirements for enterprise-reference architectures and methodologies) “ Time representation If an individual element of the enterprise system has to be traced then properties of time need to be modeled to describe short-term changes. If the property time is introduced in terms of duration, it provides the base to do further analyses (e.g., process time). There are two kinds of behavior description relative to time: static and dynamic.” Data-model standards (ISO , Product Description and Support) ENTITY product_context SUBTYPE OF (application_context_element); discipline_type : label; END_ENTITY; Semantic-model standards (IEEE P SUMO, ISO , PSL Core) (forall (?t1 ?t2 ?t3) (=> (and (before ?t1 ?t2) (before ?t2 ?t3)) (before ?t1 ?t3))) Thanks to Steve Ray, NIST

3 © 2006 Adam Pease, Articulate Software - apease [at] articulatesoftware [dot] com Imagine...your view of the web CV name education work private Joe Smith BS Case Western Reserve, 1982 MS UC Davis, ACME Software, programmer Married, 2 children

4 © 2006 Adam Pease, Articulate Software - apease [at] articulatesoftware [dot] com...and the Computer's View name CV education work private

5 © 2006 Adam Pease, Articulate Software - apease [at] articulatesoftware [dot] com But wait, we've got XML -

6 © 2006 Adam Pease, Articulate Software - apease [at] articulatesoftware [dot] com But wait, we've got XML -

7 © 2006 Adam Pease, Articulate Software - apease [at] articulatesoftware [dot] com But wait, we've got Taxonomies - Person Mammal JoeSmith

8 © 2006 Adam Pease, Articulate Software - apease [at] articulatesoftware [dot] com But wait, we've got Taxonomies - o4839 x931 i3729

9 © 2006 Adam Pease, Articulate Software - apease [at] articulatesoftware [dot] com Wait, we've got semantics - Person Mammal JoeSmith instance subclass implies Mammal JoeSmith instance

10 © 2006 Adam Pease, Articulate Software - apease [at] articulatesoftware [dot] com Wait, we've got semantics - Person Mammal JoeSmith instance subclass implies Mammal JoeSmith instance u8475 x9834 p3489 r53 r22 implies x9834 p3489 r53

11 © 2006 Adam Pease, Articulate Software - apease [at] articulatesoftware [dot] com Semantics Helps a Machine Appear Smart A “smart” machine should be able to make the same inferences we do (let's not debate the AI philosophy about whether it would actually be smart)

12 © 2006 Adam Pease, Articulate Software - apease [at] articulatesoftware [dot] com Implementation is Different from Representation Why lose meaning at design time just because of runtime issues? –We can’t reason with English definitions, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t document our terms Many different implementations may be done from the same representation This does not mean that run time issues should be ignored at design time –If you represent information you know can’t be reasoned with, it better not be essential in most conceivable applications

13 © 2006 Adam Pease, Articulate Software - apease [at] articulatesoftware [dot] com Ontology vs Language and Knowledge Ontology - Expandable - language independent - machine understandable Language - understood by humans - ambiguous Knowledge - changes rapidly - may be local to an entity

14 © 2006 Adam Pease, Articulate Software - apease [at] articulatesoftware [dot] com Mapping (deceptively easy) swrc-onto daml#Event Event comment: This is a minimalist definition of class event. We start with the very basic and we will then add slots as we specialise this definition for specific classes of events. The fillers of slots has-other-agents-involved and has- main-agent should not intersect sub-class of: #Temporal-Thing

15 © 2006 Adam Pease, Articulate Software - apease [at] articulatesoftware [dot] com Mapping (hard) ●SUMO:Process DOLCE:Perdurant –TemporalPart(x, y) =df perdurant(x) ^ Part(x, y) ^ forall z((Part(z, y) ^ z subset x) -> Part(z, x) These are just some of many axioms in each ontology (=> (and (instance ?PROC Process) (subProcess ?SUBPROC ?PROC)) (exists (?TIME) (time ?SUBPROC ?TIME)))

16 © 2006 Adam Pease, Articulate Software - apease [at] articulatesoftware [dot] com Summary If someone things mapping is feasible, it should be easy to do an example of mapping a half dozen terms from each

17 © 2006 Adam Pease, Articulate Software - apease [at] articulatesoftware [dot] com Why One Upper Ontology? Translation is hard There are many possible upper ontologies –But infinitely many bad ones English, French, Swahili, Mandarin are all reasonable as common human languages –But people pick one so as not to translate

18 © 2006 Adam Pease, Articulate Software - apease [at] articulatesoftware [dot] com Need for Formal Definition UDEF examples –8. Process: Business Process –16. Event: Any event of interest to the enterprise –4. Code: A character string used to replace a definitive value –8. Identifier: A character string used to identify and distinguish uniquely From

19 © 2006 Adam Pease, Articulate Software - apease [at] articulatesoftware [dot] com Isn't this stuff too hard?

20 © 2006 Adam Pease, Articulate Software - apease [at] articulatesoftware [dot] com Isn't this stuff too hard? Well, let's just look under the lamppost because the light is better there