Thanks Leo. (01)
... (as suggested) Let's start a new thread on this. -ppy (02)
P.S. ALL: kindly leave a blank line in between paragraphs (and post
text-only messages) if at all possible. This will help the purple
numbers [arser and hence future retrieval. -ppy (03)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Proposal for UBL Ontology Project
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 07:31:56 -0500
From: Leo Obrst <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <a5.364fb27a.2b96371b@xxxxxxx> <3E64E887.3080706@xxxxxxx> (04)
A couple of points: (05)
1) Mike Daconta seconded the use of Protege and suggested RDF/S for
the KR language. Protege supports RDF/S (and now UML, XML [DTDs and
Schemas]), but is based on the OKBC knowledge model, roughly
equivalent to KIF. This just means that you might be able to model
stuff in Protege that has no expression in RDF/S, etc., i.e., those
formalisms with less expressive power. This is just a warning, and by
no means a show-stopper. (06)
2) the typical application path for ontologies, unless the ontology
manager directly supports efficient inference of the kinds needed, is
to transform the ontologies (by this I mean the class level and the
instance level assertions, the whole shebang) to Horn Clause form for
run-time execution by an efficient Prolog engine. XSB, Amzi!, and I
believe binProlog, are free. Most modern Prologs are WAM based (Warren
Abstract Machine), a kind of logical assembler language, and compile
into C, then to an executable. So the target application model is
roughly a deductive database (logic programming + relational database,
so that you get inference and set at a time operations from a RDB).
The OntologyWorks tool (not free, but probably the best overall tool
available in the ontology realm) is like this, transforming (or
knowledge compiling) from KIF/Common Logic to a deductive database.
Protege has plugin support also for FLORA, which is an F-logic
implementation that lives on top of XSB Prolog. FLORA is an OO-like
language. Java + Prolog would seem to me to be the best path. (07)
3) an alternate path is to use JESS (Java Expert System Shell based on
CLIPS), which uses production rules rather than inference -- a clear
second choice, since in general production rules "simulate" inference
and have potentially damaging side effects. A side effect-free set of
production (condition-action) rules is probably close to logical
implication, however, and may not be problematic. So this is just a
warning. (08)
Leo
-- (09)
Farrukh Najmi wrote Tue, 04 Mar 2003 12:55:19 -0500: (010)
> MDaconta@xxxxxxx wrote Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:06:35 EST:
>
> > In a message dated 3/3/2003 10:58:11 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
> > farrukh.najmi@xxxxxxx writes: (011)
> >> I would like to propose that the proposed UBL ontologies be
> >> managed using ebXML Registry as an Ontology Server. There are
> >> many interesting features that an ebXML Registry has to offer as
> >> an ontology server. A partial list includes: (012)
> > This is interesting as I have not thought of the ebXML registry as
> > an Ontology server. (013)
> Michael,
>
> You are correct in pointing out that ebXML Registry as defined is
> not an Ontology inference engine. More specific Ontology support is
> being planned for V4 of ebXML Registry (V3 will soon be approved by
> TC). (014)
> However, it is a general purpose content management system that can
> be used to manage any type of content. Specific information models
> e.g. OWL) may be mapped to ebXML Registry using binding. (015)
> > For example, I do not believe the RIM supports
> > the formal notion of 'subclassOf" which would be critical. While
> > I believe we could use a custom association with this label, that
> > is weaker than the notion of subclass being built into the RIM. (016)
> I agree with above statement. Built-in support for ontologies are
> being planned for V4. (017)
> > For example,
> > a formal notion of subclass would allow the child information
> > object to automatically inherit the attributes of the parent.
> > Please correct me if I am misunderstanding the RIM or its
> > implications. (018)
> Your assessment is correct.
> (019)
> > Additionally, I would recommend the Ontology classes be associated
> > with a terminology registry for each concept (in essence equating
> > a class with a concept). Following step 3, in the protege
> > Ontology 101 document, we need to enumerate important terms in
> > the Ontology. I am proposing a step beyond enumeration to formal
> > definition with concept, terms and referents. Is the ebXML
> > registry suitable for a terminology registry? (020)
> This is essentially the use of ebXML Registry that I was
> envisioning. The terminology from an Ontology be mapped to a
> ClassificationScheme in RIM following a specific binding that
> overcomes limitations of single inheritence etc. using custom
> association types such as (subClassOf). Such a ClassificationScheme
> mapped from an Ontology could be used to classify UBL (and any
> other content) managed within or outside the ebXML Registry.
> The automatic content cataloging feature of the registry could
> be used to classify specific content using the ontology mapped
> ClassificationSchemes. The ontology to RIM binding would also define
> custom ad hoc queries that could be used to do ontology based
> queries such as "Find all objects classified by an ontology class
> or its sub-class". (021)
> The main thing we would be lacking is a truly open-ended ontology
> inference engine. This could be addressed by an external ontology
> engine for now and in future be available as a feature of the
> ebXML Registry. (022)
> > Or do people know of others?
> >
> > - Mike
> > -------------------------------
> > Michael C. Daconta
> > Chief Scientist, Advanced Programs Group
> > McDonald Bradley, Inc.
> > www.daconta.net (023)
> --
> Regards,
> Farrukh
> (024)
_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ (025)
|