> That's the point: the ontology, if it deals with primitive networking
> concepts, does not impose limits on the taxonomy.
Define the term "primitive networking concepts", or, if "concept"
is annoying, simply explain what is denoted by the component term
"primitive networking".
> New containers, element types, element implementations and instances
> can all be created withing the existing vocabulary. It's been about 2
> years since the last time I came up with a good reason to extend the
> ontology.
Your ability to do this is not a point of contention. I'm trying
to point you at a very deep circle in your reasoning.
It has *only* been two years since you had to change the
ontology. Why is changing your ontology in this way needed?
If "your" ontology was "correct", you could write one and be done
with it. This is not a precisely correct expression of my meaning
however; you'll always have to be changing ontology at some level:
that's the point after all.
The more precisely correct expression is that you could write a so
called "top level ontology" or "ontology in the domain of domains".
Use this top level ontology (or things derived from it) to describe
your (changing) network ontology in. If you specify top level
correctly, it is timeless, even when the ontologies within it are not.
The ability to produce this top level ontology is an area of open
debate. I appear to fall firmly within the camp that says "this is
possible, want to see how?".
What you appear to have for your network ontology bears strong
resemblance to the usual "top levelish" ontology languages (see for
example the wikipedia article on "ontology, computer science sense").
It appears that these are not considered satisfactory to some. I am
probably a member of this camp.
For myself, I would say that the concepts you speak of in your
ontology, as well as those of wikipedia's ontology article, are
entirely too derived looking for my comfort. In the primitive math
world I have, these concepts have not been invented yet.
To pick something out of your ontology, consider "name
sequencing". You speak of it as if it were a top level concept. If I
understand what you mean, where I'm from, such a thing would be a
derived concept that shouldn't be part of the top level; you're
speaking of a successor concept from the realm of the integers. If
you have some other domain masquerading as the integers, use the
existing concepts from the integers.
We're all interested in solutions to our configuration problems.
I'm quite happy to hear that you've produced a model that works for
you. The model I need is a much bigger hammer.
If you've ever written a semantic for a "novel" language before,
you probably understand that the recursion case is where the hard work
is. I've got that part already, and now it's mostly a matter of
Simple Matter of Implementation (which there is a lot of, but
relatively doable compared to reifying a recursion fixpoint).
References:
|
|
