Anatoly Levenchuk's Runglish Blog

LinkedIn have “ISO 15926” group, and this is my words in discussion “Accepting and using class definitions in non-15926 terms”:

Current computer/modeling revolution tend to be in the “interactive programming/modeling-in-large” (see http://www.slideshare.net/kruder396/evolution-in-the-large-andnd-in-the-small, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_programming etc.) direction that is the same thing that difference between object (ontology) and method (epistemology) discussion here. From Method domain classes are NOT time-independent (there is Schema versions in all CAD suits, and painfully conversion of information models from old Schema to new one). From Object domain classes are time-independent, but this is different time.

I think that future version of ISO 15926 (ISO 15926+) should be reflective ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_%28computer_science%29 ), to include Method discussion, not only Object discussion.

There is two orthogonal “times” — first is of “class model development” (that is invisible from time in 4D) and second “in 4D”. I consider that we need conceptual framework to explicitly discuss both these times, “epistemological” and “ontological”. 4D (and ISO 15926) is conceptual framework only for “ontological/object” time, but modelers need “epistemological/method” time (that should be added to known and shared ontology and labeled appropriately) — at least for ontology configuration management…