Christian's needs can easily be met by the development of a simple gui that
hides all the complexity of RDF schema and concentreates on just the simple
things that your end users will want. Protégé is a candidate for this.
Protégé allows you to select you rinpuit language, so you can select RDFS.
It can then be output into any more expressive language that you wish, and
you need not know about it. (01)
So for users with simple needs, just use simple tools that hide the
complexity that other users may need.
I think this is an easy issue to address. (02)
Mike (03)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ontology_site22@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-ontology_site22@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christian Fillies
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 2:08 PM
To: ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [ontolog] ontology tools and an ontology repository? (04)
Leo, (05)
My tool has be mentioned somewhere at the bottom of this thread.... (06)
I definitly disagree on the argument that we need highly expressive
languages. I do not think that there is "the" base language for an
ontology as long as people continue to express their knowledge in
PowerPoint or BPR tools. (07)
Our point is, that we are trying to enable end users to contribute their
own ontologies by using MS-Office products. We are having a hard time
every day to explain those domain experts what a RDFS:subClassOf might
be. Lets keep it as simple as possible. We need those folks to make
Semantic Web a success. I would not go much further than RDFS here. (08)
I'd appreciate any XML based standard to exchange knowledge bases
(information models, data models..) with reasoning engines or other
tools. This should be hidden for end-users anyway.
But the reality is that every tool/vendor has ist own format, hopefully
XML based, inherited from AI projects in the good old times. (09)
/Christian (010)
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Leo Obrst [mailto:lobrst@xxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. November 2002 22:33
An: ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Christian Fillies'
Betreff: Re: [ontolog] ontology tools and an ontology repository? (011)
Ok, then it seems like we are all agreed, no? (012)
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).
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? (013)
But to me the real issue is: what is the base language of representation
for an ontology? If you choose wrong, you may be able to express it in a
syntax you like, but not be able to express the semantics you'd like. (014)
Leo (015)
Adam Pease wrote: (016)
> Mike,
> I probably phrased my point too strongly. I'm not opposed to
> expressing an ontology in an XML-based form, but we should be clear on (017)
> why that is needed. We translate SUMO into DAML (which is built on
> RDF and XML, which means that we generate valid XML), and we do that
> so people who have DAML-based tools can use SUMO.
> XML is not a good thing in and of itself, but good only to the
> extent that it serves some beneficial and well-articulated purpose
> connected to the issue at hand, which in this case I take to be the
> storage, inspection, manipulation and use of ontologies.
>
> Adam
>
> At 10:42 AM 11/19/2002 -0800, Uschold, Michael F wrote:
> >Adam made two points:
> >1. the language needs to be very expressive, such as KIF
> >2. it is unnecessary to wrap the expressive language in XML syntax.
> >
> >My message only adressed 2, and I disagreed. I agree with 1.
> >
> >Mike
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-ontology_site22@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >[mailto:owner-ontology_site22@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Leo Obrst
> >Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 4:59 AM
> >To: ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Cc: 'Christian Fillies'
> >Subject: Re: [ontolog] ontology tools and an ontology
repository?
> >
> >I understand Adam's point, but will also underscore Mike's: i.e.,
> >yes, all of the Semantic Web languages do/will have an XML
> >serialization, for exchange, etc. But it's also the case that only a
> >specific intepreter will be able to make use of the RDF/S or OWL
> >embedded or serialized in XML, i.e., an RDF/S or
> >OWL interpreter. Perhaps that's obvious. What is not obvious is the
internal
> >language used and how things are represented internally. You might
view the
> >ontology as being represented in KIF and stored in a relational db,
which
> >has
> >import/export converters to the exchange language of choice. Or the
ontology
> >is
> >just a set of marked up documents stored as files. Or both (i.e,
native
> >RDF/S
> >or OWL ontologies in a relational db) with its own query language
(RQL,
> >etc.)
> >
> >I will say that the language of representation does matter, i.e., you (018)
> >won't be able to express rich semantics in a languge that does not
> >allow the expression
> >of rich semantics. So I think Adam's point comes around to:
KIF/Common Logic
> >is
> >the most expressive language semantically and all other translations
will
> >lose
> >information (by definition, though I don't have a proof, I do know a
bit
> >about
> >the various languages expressivity levels). So you don't want to
express
> >your
> >ontologies in a rich language, then have them converted to specific
targets
> >(e.g., Horn Clauses, etc.), but in those conversion processes you
will lose
> >info -- unless of course you convert to an even more expressive
logic, e.g.,
> >a
> >second or higher order language.
> >
> >Leo
> >
> >"Uschold, Michael F" wrote:
> >
> > > Adam,
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > In either case, please explain your reasons.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > -----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?
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > > (=>
> > > (instance ?X Horse)
> > > (exists (?Y)
> > > (and
> > > (instance ?Y Head-PartOfBody)
> > > (part ?X ?Y))))
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > > <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>
> > >
> > > This is the sort of thing that's being done in the RuleML effort. (019)
> > > The problem though is getting all this "right" with respect to the (020)
> > > semantics
> >of
> > > first order logic, and then creating tools that support those
> > > semantics,
> >as
> > > well as the XML-encoded input format.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Adam
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
> >--
> >_____________________________________________
> >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 (021)
--
_____________________________________________
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 (022)
--
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 (023)
|