FIBOFTF — OWA vs CWA

First_Name: David
Last_Name: vun Kannon
Email: dvunkannon@hotmail.com
Company: Rational Exuberance
CODE: OMG621

OWA vs CWA
Many of the assertions of Appendix C wrt logical vs. semantic models are unnecessarily broad and disputable. The key and most helpful idea is that logical models describe a system that is already abstracted away from the real world, while semantic models purport to describe the real world itself.
ìA closed world model such as a database is built with the assumption that there is data available for each field defined in the database for a given record. An open world model does not make this assumption, and so facts may be asserted whether or not there is data to correspond to those facts. This is what gives a semantic model the capability to express facts which define things.î
The person who wrote this has obviously never encountered a NULL in a SQL database. Really, this is close to word salad. Given the tabular presentation of the ontology, Iím pretty sure it can be loaded into a set relational tables. As the Internet would say, ìYour argument is invalid.î Methinks she doth protest too much, consider revising.
More importantly, open vs. closed world assumptions are Things which need to be in the Foundation! Accounting and a good piece of Contract Law make the CWA, while other modules make the OWA. If you have one Address that youíve told me about, you might have others as well.

remove and add

In Annex C sub-clause C.2 under the heading ”Open versus Closed World Assumption”, remove the following text:
“A closed world model such as a database is built with the assumption that there is data available for each field defined in the database for a given record. An open world model does not make this assumption, and so facts may be asserted whether or not there is data to correspond to those facts. This is what gives a semantic model the capability to express facts which define things. “