Hi Mike,
Yes, I think we understand each other now, and are in agreement. (01)
Adma (02)
At 04:04 PM 11/19/2002 -0800, Uschold, Michael F wrote:
>I don't think there is a problem here. Your approach seems to be what I am
>suggesting. For users with simple requirements, RDFS is enough. For them,
>there is no reason to "get an ontology expressed in first order logic into
>Protégé". By choosing to limit yourself to RDFS expressivity, then you
>limit yourself to ontologies in the repository that use that subset of KIF.
>
>
>Is there a problem that I am not seeing?
>Mike
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ontology_site22@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-ontology_site22@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adam Pease
>Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 3:47 PM
>To: ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [ontolog] ontology tools and an ontology repository?
>
>Mike,
> The problem is in the other direction though. Getting an ontology
>expressed in first order logic into Protege results in a loss of
>information. Hiding complexity is good, but losing information is bad. If
>you'll forgive a bit of self-congratulation, I think a better approach
>would be more along the lines that we've taken in our ontology tools which
>handle the full expressivity of KIF for those who want it, but also allow
>expression in restricted natural language [1] and simple taxonomic format
>[2] for those who prefer a simpler view. We also translate out to the less
>expressive forms, while maintaining the original, full version.
>
>Adam
>
>[1] <http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/p/part.html> shows restricted English
>forms, although it would be good to be able to hide the formal logic
>expressions for simplicity.
>
>[2]
><http://virtual.cvut.cz/kifb/en/toc/Entity-Physical-Process-Motion-Transfer.
>html>
>
>
>At 02:25 PM 11/19/2002 -0800, Uschold, Michael F wrote:
> >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.
> >
> >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.
> >
> >Mike
> >
> >
> > -----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?
> >
> >Leo,
> >
> >My tool has be mentioned somewhere at the bottom of this thread....
> >
> >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.
> >
> >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.
> >
> >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.
> >
> >/Christian
> >
> >-----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?
> >
> >
> >Ok, then it seems like we are all agreed, no?
> >
> >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?
> >
> >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.
> >
> >Leo
> >
> >Adam Pease wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > > >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.
> >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> >
> >--
> >_____________________________________________
> >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 (03)
--
To post messages mailto:ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
An archive of the [ontolog] forum can be found
at http://ontolog.cim3.org/forums/ontolog (04)
|