fluid-tech IRC Logs-2012-10-01

[12:22:56 CDT(-0500)] <yura> colinclark: have a sec for a quick question ?

[12:24:15 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> sure

[12:24:56 CDT(-0500)]

[12:25:09 CDT(-0500)] <yura> were we talking about solutions or ontologies ?

[12:25:18 CDT(-0500)] <yura> i got myself confused a little

[12:27:34 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> These are part of the currently Solutions Registry documents

[12:27:39 CDT(-0500)] <yura> right

[12:27:42 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Used to describe a Solution

[12:27:46 CDT(-0500)] <yura> right

[12:27:52 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> presumably they could have been sourced by an Ontology

[12:27:59 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> though I guess we don't really care, in any formal way

[12:28:17 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> except to say that we may, in the future, actually key these two blocks by "ontology ID"

[12:28:45 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> In other words, different ontologies might express these things differently, if that makes sense

[12:30:37 CDT(-0500)] <yura> colinclark: well ok in this particular example , capability references an ontology

[12:32:46 CDT(-0500)] <yura> and there's a different one that references a different ontology and thus has different capabilitiesTransformation set

[12:33:32 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> That would be the idea in the future, yes

[12:33:43 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> I'm not sure i want to make the change yet because it'll break everybody

[12:33:48 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> but I guess it would look like this:

[12:34:58 CDT(-0500)]

[12:35:01 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> something like that, anyway

[12:36:58 CDT(-0500)] <yura> colinclark: makes sense , so what information would ontologies carry then ?

[12:37:07 CDT(-0500)] <yura> you meantioned 4. Ontologies will describe their a) "ontological metric" and b) their relationship to at least one other ontology in terms of how to transform to/from it using JSON documents

[12:37:42 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> yes

[12:37:51 CDT(-0500)] <yura> i guess that's where i got confused

[12:37:57 CDT(-0500)] <yura> the b part

[12:38:08 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> and presumably they would "annotate" the solutions registry with information about solutions

[12:38:24 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Well, the good news is that we don't really need to worry about b) until we have another ontology

[12:38:44 CDT(-0500)] <yura> colinclark: right

[12:38:59 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> and when we do, the idea would be that, say, Kostas would create a transformation map that corresponds his ontology to our default ontology

[12:39:02 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> and vice versa

[12:41:11 CDT(-0500)] <yura> colinclark: ok so this helps, then at this point (with 1 ontology) it does not represent any functional value as it's only used as annotation

[12:41:18 CDT(-0500)] <yura> is that correct , colinclark ?

[12:43:12 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> wait, what doesn't represent any functional value?

[12:43:45 CDT(-0500)] <yura> ontology since it will not have the transformation map until there is another ontology

[12:45:41 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> yes

[12:45:53 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> The only thing an ontology will do, today, is provide a), the ontological metric