Re: [ontolog] ontology tools and an ontology repository?

[MDaconta@xxxxxxx]

Hi Leo,

I'll jump in here as I don't agree with where this logic is heading...
(though I agree with some of it)

In a message dated 11/19/2002 2:34:10 PM US Mountain Standard Time, lobrst@xxxxxxxxx writes:

> 1) You need an expressive language for ontologies, the more expressive in general
> the better (with some qualification about expressive limits and tractability;
> Description Logics as a KR thread has tried to find a tractable sub-First Order
> Logic that is as close to FOL as you can get).


I don't believe the statement, "the more expressive the better" is the right
criteria for the language.  Why? Because we don't yet know useful _expression_
from useless _expression_.  Languages and systems are created all the time
with features that are rarely or never used due to poor design, poor 
implementation, or they solve the wrong problem.

So, I would say:  "Expressive enough to achieve known benefits."

> 2) It's useful to have multiple targeted syntaxes, depending on your needs. In
> OWL, we have an XML target (because the W3C and we build on XML and RDF/S and
> these languages are increasingly popular). I think Common Logic (ISO-KIF?) has
> multiple syntaxes too, no?


While you can support other syntaxes, you MUST support the #1 syntax
which is XML.  So, I would say, XML first and others as you have time or
community interest.

Regards,

 - Mike
----------------------------------------------------
Michael C. Daconta
Director, Web & Technology Services
www.mcbrad.com