Peter Denno wrote Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:50:51 -0500:
> On Thursday 10 March 2005 11:28, Adam Pease wrote:
>
>>Hi Peter,
>> Many thanks for doing this. Is the code Java?
>>If so, we could include it in
>>Sigma as a call from the Diagnostics.jsp page.
> (01)
> No. Unfortunately it is in lisp, but I might include
> it in my UBL validation
> tool, if we find that it is useful.
> (02)
>>I'll look at the report and see
>>what needs to be addressed.
> (03)
> There are of course some spurious reports.
> (e.g. Entity is not in the type
> hierarchy of Entity). And the motivation behind
> the test of ensuring that
> things in a disjointDecomposition are subclass
> of the thing decomposed is probably flawed. (04)
> Also, I just noticed that the "instance of something"
> test is not thorough. I only test on
> predicate/function symbols that I pick as the first
> symbol in an axiom. Thus I pick up
> p in (p ...) but not q nor r in (=> (q...) (r...)).
> I have a clausifer for SUO KIF. I'll see if I can't
> pick up the symbols from
> the clause normal form.
> (05)
>>Adam (06)
>>At 07:58 AM 3/10/2005, Peter Denno wrote:
>>
>>>Adam, et al.,
>>>
>>>I wrote a small tool to check a few aspects of the
>>>'structural integrity' of ontologies written
>>>in SUO KIF. The attached file is the output against
>>>SUMO 1.72. The tool is not well tested (it's a day's
>>>work) but I thought that getting this out there
>>>might start a dialog to improve it. (For that matter, I
>>>was looking for the correct forum for this dialog. Ontolog
>>>might not be it, but scanning old email I couldn't
>>>think who else to send it to!). (07)
>>>Regarding what the tool reports, there are several
>>>reports under the test: (08)
>>> *** Test: ?x in (domain <Relation> <num> ?x)
>>>isn't one of the other classes that
>>>are in the disjointDecomposition of Abstract. (09)
>>>This concerns, as we have discussed, the
>>>problems of the axioms: (010)
>>>(disjointDecomposition Abstract Quantity Attribute SetOrClass
>>>Relation Proposition) (011)
>>>(domain domain 3 SetOrClass) (012)
>>>The test reports only those instances where the
>>>disjointDecomposition is violated. There are
>>>plenty more situations where something other than an
>>>Abstract (e.g. Agent) is used in (domain domain 3...).
>>>I suppose that what is intended
>>>in those situations is "SetORClass of" (e.g.
>>> (domain experiencer 2 Agent) means "SetOrClass of Agent") ...
>>> but that seems like an extra-theoretical interpretation.
>>> (013)
>>>--
>>>Best Regards,
>>>- Peter
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (014)
|