We've had much the same argument in UN/CEFACT regarding semantic business
models and their syntax specific expressions. (01)
Syntax are usually optimized for their use case / application, which is a good
thing. XML serialization has several advantages to those wishing to base
application functionality on evolving ontology semantics, where that
application will be aligned with specific versions of the ontology through
exchange of serializations. (02)
The ideal solution is a semantic model which can be expressed in several
syntax. You see this now in the Protégé project, with the ability to emit
several syntax specific representations of an ontology expression. (03)
I would vote for the repository being constructed around a model, with
interfaces to the repository being in specific syntax. (I'm a fan of RDF) (04)
John (05)
-----Original Message-----
From: Uschold, Michael F [mailto:michael.f.uschold@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 7:28 PM
To: 'ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Cc: 'Christian Fillies'
Subject: RE: [ontolog] ontology tools and an ontology repository? (06)
Adam, (07)
While I'm no expert on this, I think I disagree. Having an XML
serialization of KIF or whatever language you choose is a good idea - it
saves you from having to build a parser and makes it more widely available.
Just about everything these days has an XML serialization, e.g. RDF,
DAML+OIL, OWL etc. At the very least, there should probably be an export
to XML option. (08)
Do you think everyone else who thinks it is worthwhile to have an XML
serialization is (select one or more):
1. wasting their time
2. has different needs than is being discussed for Leo's ontology
repository. (09)
In either case, please explain your reasons. (010)
Mike (011)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ontology_site22@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-ontology_site22@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adam Pease
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 6:14 PM
To: ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Christian Fillies
Subject: RE: [ontolog] ontology tools and an ontology repository? (012)
Monica,
XML is a general-purpose syntax, that can at some level accommodate any
information, just as an RDBMS can. However, the computational semantics of
a more expressive language will be lost.
For example, "Every horse has a head." is expressed in KIF as (013)
(=>
(instance ?X Horse)
(exists (?Y)
(and
(instance ?Y Head-PartOfBody)
(part ?X ?Y)))) (014)
KIF defines what "=>", "exists", "and" etc mean, and what any computational
system employing those terms (that is conformant to KIF), must be able to
conclude based on their use. For example, if Ed is a Horse, then there
must exists a head that is part of Ed.
One could encode the statement above in many different ways in XML. For
example (015)
<implies>
<antecedent>
<clause>
<predicate value="instance">
<argument number=1 value="?X">
<argument number=2 value="Horse">
</clause>
</antecedent>
<consequent>
<existential>
<varlist><var name="?Y"></varlist>
<and>
<clause>
<predicate value="instance">
<argument number=1 value="?Y">
<argument number=2 value="Head-PartOfBody">
</clause>
<clause>
<predicate value="part">
<argument number=1 value="?x">
<argument number=2 value="?Y">
</clause>
</and>
</existential>
</consequent>
</implies> (016)
This is the sort of thing that's being done in the RuleML effort. The
problem though is getting all this "right" with respect to the semantics of
first order logic, and then creating tools that support those semantics, as
well as the XML-encoded input format. (017)
This seems unnecessary to me. I'd suggest using an ontology tool that
reads and understands KIF, instead of wrapping another layer of syntax
around it. (018)
Adam (019)
At 03:33 PM 11/13/2002 -0800, Monica Martin wrote:
>Why don't we consider using ebXML Reg / Rep to store these ontology
>artifacts, or am I missing something?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob Smith [mailto:robsmith5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 10:52 AM
>To: ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Cc: Christian Fillies
>Subject: RE: [ontolog] ontology tools and an ontology repository?
>
>
>Hi Leo,
>
>Thanks for the XML.com survey of 53 tools...what a range of options
>today. What will the market look like in 18 months?
>
>A web-based ontology repository hosted on the site could help shape this
>evolving market by illustrating which features of various tools are more
>in demand than others (at least for this select audience...)
>
>I am using Semtalk (www.semtalk.com ) to support a few client's
>requirements.
>
>Since Peter is developing a survey format, I will just wait for his
>email.
>
>Thanks !!
>
>Bob Smith, Ph.D.
>Tall Tree Labs
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ontology_site22@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-ontology_site22@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Leo Obrst
>Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 5:20 AM
>To: Ontolog-forums-cim3-net
>Subject: [ontolog] ontology tools and an ontology repository?
>
>
>All,
>
>We are considering one possibility for our site: an ontology repository,
>wherein folks can register ontologies and/or build ontologies using
>Web-enabled tools, possibly hosted at our site.
>
>So some questions:
>1) How do you feel about:
> a) our site supporting an ontology repository?
> b) our site supporting a Web-enabled ontology tool (for developing
>ontologies)?
> c) none of the above.
>
>2) Which ontology tools do you use?
> a) Can you characterize the tools: i.e., Web-enabled, ontology
>languages supported, cost/licensing, POCs, experience, etc.
> b) Do you know of a tool provider who might support such a public
>effort, hosted on our site?
>
>3) Which ontology languages (knowledge representation languages) should
>be the standard(s) for the ontologies?
> (Some examples: Ontolingua/KIF, Common Logic, OKBC, CycL, RDF/S,
>DAML+OIL, OWL, etc.)
>
>4) Additional Comments?
>
>Thanks!
>Leo
>
>--
>_____________________________________________
>Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation
>mailto:lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
>Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S W640
>Fax: 703-883-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
>
>
>
>--
>To post messages mailto:ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>An archive of the [ontolog] forum can be found
>at http://ontolog.cim3.org/forums/ontolog
>
>
>--
>To post messages mailto:ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>An archive of the [ontolog] forum can be found
>at http://ontolog.cim3.org/forums/ontolog
>--
>To post messages mailto:ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>An archive of the [ontolog] forum can be found
>at http://ontolog.cim3.org/forums/ontolog (020)
--
To post messages mailto:ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
An archive of the [ontolog] forum can be found
at http://ontolog.cim3.org/forums/ontolog
--
To post messages mailto:ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
An archive of the [ontolog] forum can be found
at http://ontolog.cim3.org/forums/ontolog
--
To post messages mailto:ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
An archive of the [ontolog] forum can be found
at http://ontolog.cim3.org/forums/ontolog (021)
|