[CL] (S)CL mapping for Object Role Modeling?

[Elisa F. Kendall]

Hi Michael & all,

So -- I apologize for the confusing language -- I was working with Ed 
Barkmeyer,
Evan Wallace, and Conrad Bock to review the SBVR specification, and we 
(together)
believed that the underlying logic of SBVR needed to be clearly 
specified/mapped,
and that the SBVR specification could also benefit from some kind of 
process
specification model such as PSL.  We (Ed, Conrad, Evan, and I) attempted to
convince the SBVR team to take a serious look at PSL, but were unsuccessful.

I was relieved that they were interested in working with Pat Hayes to 
create a
mapping of the logical formulations, at a minimum, and saw that as a 
success,
though.  To some of John's points along this thread, if a mapping from 
the core
'logical formulations" of SBVR to CL were available, and if they also 
map their
process related language to something like BPM (which is also winding 
it's way
through the OMG at this point -- the BPMI organization became part of 
the OMG
in September), or PSL, it would be greatly improved.

Michael Gruninger wrote:

>>I spent time
>>with folks from NIST working through this with them, and attempted to
>>convince a couple of them that a grounding that included situation
>>calculus (which one could potentially extend CL to support) would be
>>better than what they have, but had little success on this.  I'm still happy
>>to see Pat and Terry working together on the first point, and think that
>>will go a long way towards improving the document.
>>    
>>
>
>Hi Elisa,
>which work are you specifically referring to here?
>
>As Chris Menzel said in his message, there is a close relationship
>between PSL and situation calculus. In particular, the situation trees 
>that are models of Reiter's axioms for situation calculus are isomorphic 
>to the occurrence trees that are axiomatized in the PSL Outer Core theory 
>occtree.th 
>
>On the other hand, I don't quite see how situation calculus applies
>to this thread. I noticed that you also mentioned:
>
>  
>
>>Again, when I read it, since my background includes work
>>in Situation Semantics, hairs on the back of my neck went up.  
>>    
>>
>
>Did you really mean "situation semantics" when you referred to
>"situation calculus"?
>  
>
No -- situation calculus, though I also think that there should be some 
kind of context
associated with the sentences one might build using the SBVR vocabulary 
a la situation
semantics ... :). 

Thanks -- and I hope this clarifies a little.

Elisa

>- michael
>
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://philebus.tamu.edu/mailman/private/cl/attachments/20051121/d72b99de/attachment.htm