[sc34wg3] From another committee: ISO 18629 Process Specification Language - still more meat for the ontological stew

[Mason, James David (MXM)]

Murray, this is a subject that comes up from time to time, particularly =
in
reference to grounding PSIs.

ISO itself is unwilling to take this on; it's totally outside what they =
can
grok.

However, WG3 just negotiated posession of a domain name from empolis, =
which
generously let them take it over. I think Steve Pepper is now the =
caretaker.

Jim




Murray Altheim wrote:
> Mason, James David (MXM) wrote:
>=20
>> Noticed this in the SUO discusion. Might be useful for PSIs?
>>
>>Jim Mason
>=20
> You're thinking along the same lines as I. I've downloaded the draft=20
> and am looking at a PSI set for it, perhaps even a translation (if=20
> possible) into LTM for import into Ceryle (or other LTM-enabled=20
> tools).

Jim,

I note that there seems to be plans for committee production of an XML
rendition of ISO 18629, which would be (I believe) an easier conversion =
than
straight from the KIF. There's 17 axioms in the document I have, which =
could
perhaps be translated by hand faster than trying to manage a KIF =
conversion.
Unless someone has created a KIF-to-XTM tool (wishful thinking).

Unfortunately, the XML rendition is not yet available, but I'll try to =
keep
my eye on the project, and possibly send Rich Cooper a note about this. =
It
strikes me that I might even talk them into providing a base URL in the =
ISO
domain for the PSIs, though that might be wishful thinking too. But if
there's some way to use an ISO domain namespace rather than
"http://purl.org/ceryle/" I'd be happy to know. Perhaps it could be =
provided
by SC34WG3? I don't know if you are authorised to create and/or promote =
such
a thing.
ISO PSIs are an interesting idea.

Alternately, I could see if there's a PURL available for PSL, too, as it
least that's a bit more neutral than using a domain of my own, though =
worst
case I'll certainly do that.

Murray

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>>[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Rich=20
>>Cooper
>>Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 2:10 PM
>>To: John F. Sowa; cg@cs.uah.edu;=20
>>standard-upper-ontology@listserv.ieee.org;
>>Rob Freeman
>>Cc: cassidy; West, Matthew R SIPC-OFD/321
>>Subject: ISO 18629 Process Specification Language - still more meat=20
>>for the ontological stew
>>
>>ISO has reached the last stage of approval for a new ontology that has =

>>about 300 concepts related to temporal duration, precedence, interval=20
>>logic, time, ordering, activities, and other concepts that they=20
>>believe are related to process specification in a manufacturing=20
>>environment.  Surely these concepts are general enough to handle many =
kinds
of discrete process descriptions.
>>
>>Does anyone have experience, opinions, beliefs, ... about the new PSL=20
>>standard?
>>
>>Rich
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>sc34wg3 mailing list
>>sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
>>http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3
>>
>=20
>=20
>=20


--=20

Murray

......................................................................
Murray Altheim                          http://www.altheim.com/murray/
Strategic and Services Development
The Open University Library
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK               .

       The moment you come to trust chaos, you see God clearly.
       Chaos is divine order, versus human order. Change is
       divine order, versus human order. When the chaos becomes
       safety to you, then you know you're seeing God clearly.
                                               -- Caroline Myss
_______________________________________________
sc34wg3 mailing list
sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3