Pat, (01) Thanks for the message. (02) > I have not attempted to determine what are > the differences from the 1.55 file. (03) Don't know about 1.55, but for the two versions of the SUMO ontology that we were dealing with: (04) o SUMO-1.38 (that came with the kifb install), see: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/kifb it says: (05) "Currently there are 4013 sentences and 954 documented concepts in the ontology." (06) As for (07) o SUMO-1.59a (that you sent over, line 11737 modified), see: http://newell.cim3.com/cgi-bin/kifb (only available temporarily) it says: (08) "Currently there are 4380 sentences and 1021 documented concepts in the ontology." (09) I'm sure Adam Pease will be able to enlighten us on this. (010) Talk to you on your return. Have a wonderful trip! (011) Sincerely, PPY (012) P.S. I hope you don't mind my extending the routing of this exchange. I felt it is important to capture your message into the archives somewhere. (013) P.P.S. In your messages, please try to leave a blank line in between paragraphs. That will help our "purple numbers", and allow us to have paragraph level granularity in our hyperlink access in the future. -ppy -- (014) Patrick Cassidy wrote Sat, 16 Aug 2003 00:25:15 -0400: > > Peter, > I did check the browser with the new database, but > only looked at two or three classes. It looks fine > to me, but I have not attempted to determine what are > the differences from the 1.55 file. (015) > So it seems that we can simply edit that one text file > with a text editor and get the new browser view. > At some point I will want to look at conversion of > the Protege files to KIF. Perhaps it will be easier to > go through OWL or RDF. I have not attempted to > look at those at all. (016) > As I mentioned, before looking at a conversion from > Protege I would rather concentrate what effort I can > spend initially on getting the UBL Invoice-related > concepts into Protege in the proper locations. Then > I would worry about getting the same information into > KIF format. But if others think that using the > browser would be more productive in preparing a > formal ontology representation of UBL-Op70, then > I might change priorities to the conversion > problem -- for myself at least, even if for no > one else. I am not in the least bit satisfied that > I know yet how to represent many of the UBL concepts, > in any formalization. So I would not try at this > point to write the concepts directly to a KIF file. > I really want to know what I want to write before > I try to write it, in any language. (017) > I did send a note to Adam to try to refocus discussion > to the question of actual representation of UBL concepts, > rather than the representation formalism. I haven't > yet received a reply. (018) > It may be that using Protege biases one's ontological > views toward a less effective conceptual structure, > as Adam says, but I have had not experience that makes > me feel that way. At the same time I wouldn't claim > that developing in Protege provides the best representation. > I just don't know. (019) > I probably won't have a chance to look at any UBL stuff > for the next two weeks. I'll get in touch when I am back > and settled enough to resume effort. My mailbox is likely > to overflow long before that. I get over 400 spam messages > every day. It's amazing how rapidly the numbers are > increasing. (020) > Thanks for all your efforts, and particularly the latest, > figuring out how to modify the database for the browser . > > Best regards, (021) > ================================= > > Peter P. Yim wrote Fri, 15 Aug 2003 19:39:25 -0700: > >> Pat, >> >> Here are the screen shots (in case my machine is off when you want to >> look at it!) >> >> -ppy >> -- >> (022)
_________________________________________________________________ To Post: mailto:ontolog-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-dev/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (01) |
