TLO Recommendation V0.6

[matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk]

Dear Colleagues,

Here is the official draft of the recommendation for the next stage.

 

Regards

Matthew West

Technical Lead – National Digital Twin programme

 

 

[Gerhard Goldbeck]

Dear Matthew,

I just joined this group and had a look at the very impressive document you put together. Regarding the TLO overview, I would like to point out that the categorisation of EMMO in Figure 5 is not correct. EMMO has no stratification and EMMO is Highly Committed. At the top level, EMMO has arguably the most committed mereotopological description a strict semantic meaning given to mereotopological entities. Also, EMMO is 4D and any activity is the physical object categorized as a process. There is no entity multiplication, no stratification. As EMMO applies mereotopology implications through reasoning I would also argue it includes Formal Generation (but happy to discuss). Hence EMMO should be grouped along BORO etc in FIgure 5.

Best wishes

Gerhard

[Chris Partridge]

Hi Gerhard, 

It is really good to see you on the list.

It is also good that you are helping to improve the survey.

As you know we engaged back in June where Matthew and I shared all the resources we had for EMMO, as well as the details of the project.
In particular, I said "I have found a couple of links on the web: https://github.com/emmo-repo/EMMO, https://materialsmodelling.com/2019/06/14/european-materials-modelling-ontology-emmo-release/. I could not find anything pre-2019."
You kindly replied: "Thanks for your interest in EMMO. There were earlier pre- release versions of EMMO but the EMMO repo correctly covers the final pre-release as well as first and second alpha release versions.

The figures and text in the survey are from this repo (https://github.com/emmo-repo/EMMO)

You mention "Figure 5". I think this may be from a different (earlier) version of the survey. I think you may be talking about Figure 9 in my current latest version - see below.

There is a description of EMMO in Appendix E (in my version), where much of what you say is covered - we tended to let the top level ontologies self-describe, as far as possible. The text is taken from the repo.

We spent quite some time aiming for a clear and fair basis for the general classifications - building up from the results of the assessment.

It might be useful to go through these results and see where we might have got something wrong. Then we have a better basis for discussion.

As an aside you will notice that a number of the other lightly committed ontologies (e.g.  ConML and CIDOC) have quite substantial ontological commitments as well, however not as extensive as the highly committed ontologies.

This version is about to be issued, so maybe we wait for that so we are both working on the same version.

It has been a while since I looked at this, so my recollection is fading.

You mention some interesting points.

"As EMMO applies mereotopology implications through reasoning I would also argue it includes Formal Generation (but happy to discuss)."

I wonder how close you are to GEM (General Extensional Mereology) - and what the differences are if any. Maybe you also adopt GEMTC?

"EMMO has no stratification "

It would be good to know more.

Are there higher order entities? Collections of collections? And mixed collections are allowed? It would be good to know more about how you accomodated that in OWL.

"EMMO is 4D"

I believe this is mentioned in the Appendix "the EMMO defines real world objects as 4D objects that are always extended in space and time (i.e. real-world objects cannot be spaceless nor timeless). "

It would be good to go into all this in more detail so we can update/improve the assessment - and also find out more about EMMO.

Regards,
Chris Partridge

Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited | www.BOROSolutions.co.uk
M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905 6100 58

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/6417b552-52df-4234-ae4f-4efaf44092ddn%40googlegroups.com.

[Gerhard Goldbeck]

Hi Chris,

thanks for the reminder about the earlier conversations. Your work is extremely impressive. We are just starting a materials and manufacturing related project called OntoCommons which will i.a. work on TLOs and once publically available it would be fantastic to use what this group has done.

In terms of the current discussion, I referred to the TLO Recommendation 0.6 document which is attached to this thread. If you could point me to more recent versions/docs, that would be great (maybe I missed them in this system...)

I will come back to you about your more detailed questions.

Regards

Gerhard

[Chris Partridge]

Hi Gerhard,

Thanks for the compliment.

Your new stuff sounds interesting too, as does the EMMO stuff. Be good to understand more.

The details are in the survey paper, which preceded the recommendation paper. Could I send you the latest version of this in a couple of days? They are, I am told, just about to publish it. Then we will have no concerns about whether we are working on the latest version. (If you want an earlier look, then there are a number of earlier versions on the list.)

Regards,
Chris Partridge

Chris Partridge | Chief Ontologist | BORO Solutions Limited | www.BOROSolutions.co.uk
M: +44 790 5167263 | e: partr...@borogroup.co.uk

BORO Solutions Limited | Registered Office: 2 West Street, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU
Registered in England & Wales | Company No: 06025010 | VAT No. GB 905 6100 58

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/06a4ea89-d7fe-4f41-b7ce-69535b77ba79n%40googlegroups.com.

[matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk]

Dear Gerhard and others,

I sent the email below yesterday with a late prepublication version of the TLO survey attached. It is a substantial document and turned out to be too large for Googlegroups and my email was rejected, the technical content has not changed form what has previously been circulated in the spreadsheets that have been sent here. I guess we will have to wait for the official publication.

In the meantime I see Chris has picked up on your email and his responses are much the same as mine below.

 

Finally, I’d like to explain the silence in the last several weeks. It does not mean nothing has been happening, rather the reverse, we have been very busy on the one hand getting the documents you have seen through the publication process (nearly complete) and on the other had planning and getting started what we do next to follow up on the Recommendation.

 

We have started a project to develop a 4D constructional foundation ontology and another project to investigate the architectural principles that should guide the Integration Architecture.

 

A constructional approach is one that has object builders, so having some starting collection of real world objects, you can generate say all the sets that it is possible to construct from those objects (and then powersets of those sets), or all the mereological sums of those objects, and these are the objects you admit. This then becomes a way of grounding your ontology and reducing the risk of flights of fancy.

 

The idea behind this is that it makes what we are developing as transparent and explicit as possible and rule driven, both so that it can be used repeatably, and challenged where there might be errors, rather than there having to be a single guru whose answer to any difficult questions has to be taken as final. That does not get you away from experts. You will notice that with laws you still need skilful lawyers, and with the FDM you will still need skilful ontologists, but it is all less mysterious.

 

Regards

Matthew West

Technical Lead – National Digital Twin programme

https://www.cdbb.cam.ac.uk/what-we-do/national-digital-twin-programme

 

 

 

From: matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk <matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk>
Sent: 12 November 2020 15:26
To: 'uk-nd...@googlegroups.com' <uk-nd...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [FDM] Re: TLO Recommendation V0.6

 

Dear Gerhard,

Figure 5 in the Recommendation Document is just a transcription/visualisation of selected elements of the analysis in Appendix E of the TLO survey (copy attached). What I notice is that a few things were unclear for EMMO from the information we had available, and we were under pressure to get an initial version of the TLO survey out by end September to go into the publication process, so did not have time to dig further.

The plan is to publish a next version of the survey on the web so it will be possible to update the data at that stage. I suggest providing the evidence for the revised classifications to Chris Partridge and Andy Mitchell who did most of the work on the Survey.

 

Regards

Matthew West

Technical Lead – National Digital Twin programme

https://www.cdbb.cam.ac.uk/what-we-do/national-digital-twin-programme

--