Typically this is not done by a tool, but using say Perl scripts to transform
the original ontology representation language stuff to
Prolog. I know Teknowledge does this and probably quite a few other folks.
Ontolingua supposedly had a translation from KIF to Prolog, but
no one seems to know much about it. (01)
Leo (02)
"Uschold, Michael F" wrote: (03)
> Leo, I only know of one tool that does this, IODE from OntologyWorks. It is
>far from typical, in my experience. DO you know of others?
>
> ) 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.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Leo Obrst
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 4:32 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Proposal for UBL Ontology Project
>
> A couple of points:
>
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
>
> Leo
>
> Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>
> > MDaconta@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > > In a message dated 3/3/2003 10:58:11 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
> > > farrukh.najmi@xxxxxxx writes:
> > >
> > >> 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:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This is interesting as I have not thought of the ebXML registry as
> > > an Ontology server.
> >
> > 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).
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I agree with above statement. Built-in support for ontologies are being
> > planned for V4.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Your assessment is correct.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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?
> >
> > 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".
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > > Or do people know of others?
> > >
> > > - Mike
> > > -------------------------------
> > > Michael C. Daconta
> > > Chief Scientist, Advanced Programs Group
> > > McDonald Bradley, Inc.
> > > www.daconta.net
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Farrukh
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>
> --
> _____________________________________________
> Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation
> mailto:lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
> Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305
> Fax: 703-883-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ (04)
--
_____________________________________________
Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation
mailto:lobrst@xxxxxxxxx Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S H305
Fax: 703-883-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA (05)
_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ (06)
|