[wg11-owl] Re: Paper: Criticism of the STEP ApplicationModule approach

[West, Matthew R SIPC-OFD/321]

Dear David P,

See below.


Regards

Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west at shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Price [mailto:david.price at eurostep.com]
> Sent: 09 June 2005 16:41
> To: 'David Leal'; wg11-owl at steptools.com; Tore.R.Christiansen at dnv.com;
> West, Matthew R SIPC-OFD/321
> Subject: RE: [wg11-owl] Re: Paper: Criticism of the STEP
> ApplicationModule approach
> 
> 
> Hi David L,
> 
> I saw on a WG3/WG12 agenda that you will explain how OWL and 15926 can
> address the issues raised in the paper.
> 
> I think the larger problem is really organizational or perhaps
> architectural. For example, if you gave each separate 
> AP/modules team 15926
> as OWL and told them to go off and model you'd get completely 
> different
> results for the same scope. Who then would force them to 
> harmonize across
> multiple domains and who's going to fund them to do so? 
> Harmonization costs
> money and time both of which are ususally short in an AP project.

MW: This really should not be the case if teams are properly trained in
the methodology by which ISO 15926 has been developed. The methodology
is essentially defined in ISO 18876, and includes integration into the
greater whole as an integral part of the methodology. Also, since use of a
4D foundational ontology is a key part of the methodology, even if
different groups have different viewpoints, part of the metholodogy prescribes
translation into a 4D viewpoint.

MW: Anyway, if we take it that OWL is just the current flavour, we will be
able to see the proof of the pudding over the coming months since both you 
me and David L are part of the team to develop Shell's Downstream Data Model
as a number of overlapping schemas with ISO 15926-2 as the foundation.
> 
> Do you have associated organizational or procedural changes 
> in mind? Can
> this really work in SC4 as it's constitued today? Could this 
> be done better
> outside SC4 (e.g. in OMG or OASIS)?

MW: You undoubtedly need to change the architecture and methodology from 
the current STEP one, but there is one that has been developed available
for use, so it is not as if you have to start from scratch.
> 
> Just asking questions...
> 
> Cheers,
> David P
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wg11-owl-bounces at steptools.com 
> [mailto:wg11-owl-bounces at steptools.com]
> On Behalf Of David Leal
> Sent: 07 June 2005 16:39
> To: wg11-owl at steptools.com; Tore.R.Christiansen at dnv.com;
> matthew.west at shell.com
> Subject: Re: [wg11-owl] Re: Paper: Criticism of the STEP 
> ApplicationModule
> approach
> 
> 
> Dear Ed and other WG11ers,
> 
> The paper is attached.
> 
> You say:
> >But as to the SC4 definitions, they are what they are, and 
> the EXPRESS
> models we have reflect the depth of our mutual understanding. 
>  If we need to
> discard most of the existing definitions in order to get the 
> EXPRESS models
> to make any sense, there isn't much value to the STEP models, 
> and whether we
> convert them to ontologies" is irrelevant to their uselessness.
> >
> >I don't believe that. My purpose is to get these models turned into
> "ontologies" of the OWL kind, *so that* we can evaluate both 
> the utility of
> the EXPRESS models as an "engineering ontology" and the 
> utility of DLs of
> the OWL kind to engineering applications.
> 
> Unfortunately I do believe that - the negative assessment is 
> true in many
> cases. The STEP methodology can fix-up ill-defined concepts 
> by specific
> usages within an AP, but as soon as the concepts are converted into an
> ontology, the failings are exposed and need to be fixed. The 
> creation of an
> 'ontology' of ill-defined concepts is a complete waste of time.
> 
> Best regards,
> David
> 
> At 10:39 07/06/2005 -0400, you wrote:
> >David Leal wrote:
> >
> >> Lothar's paper is very welcome, however it is more than a 
> 'criticism 
> >> of the STEP application module approach'. Lothar's paper shows the 
> >> problems that are caused by the vague definitions of the 
> concepts at 
> >> the heart of STEP - product, product category, 
> >> product_definition_formation, and
> product_definition.
> >
> >I do not know the paper to which David's email refers.
> >Can someone point me to this paper?
> >
> >> If we are to do anything with OWL, then we need concepts 
> with precise 
> >> definitions. Lothar lists some concepts/terms that we 
> should be able 
> >> to define, and suggests subclass-superclass relationships between 
> >> them. What about starting by defining these concepts, and 
> creating a 
> >> useful engineering ontology.
> >
> >I think the idea of creating an engineering ontology is an excellent
> >academic research activity, and I might hope that one or two 
> >universities are already engaged in it.
> >
> >But as to the SC4 definitions, they are what they are, and 
> the EXPRESS
> >models we have reflect the depth of our mutual understanding.  If we 
> >need to discard most of the existing definitions in order to get the 
> >EXPRESS models to make any sense, there isn't much value to the STEP 
> >models, and whether we convert them to "ontologies" is irrelevant to 
> >their uselessness.
> >
> >I don't believe that.  My purpose is to get these models turned into
> >"ontologies" of the OWL kind, *so that* we can evaluate both 
> the utility 
> >of the EXPRESS models as an "engineering ontology" and the 
> utility of 
> >DLs of the OWL kind to engineering applications.
> >
> >-Ed
> >
> >P.S. High-level ontological classes, like Product, are deliberately
> >large and have very few critical properties.  The question 
> is whether 
> >the EXPRESS models reflect the critical properties.  And I 
> agree that in 
> >some cases, they don't!  But the value to SC4 is to identify those 
> >cases, not to start over.
> >
> >-- 
> >Edward J. Barkmeyer                        Email: edbark at nist.gov
> >National Institute of Standards & Technology
> >Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
> >100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8264                Tel: +1 301-975-3528
> >Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8264                FAX: +1 301-975-4694
> >
> >"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
> >  and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
> >
> >
> 
> 
>