Leo,
I'm puzzled about your comment on OKBC and Protege being equivalent to
KIF. Both Protege and OKBC are frame-based languages without full
quantification, negation etc that is present in KIF. In what sense do you
claim they are equivalent? (01)
Adam (02)
At 04:02 PM 3/7/2003 -0500, Leo Obrst wrote:
>Good comments, Pat. Some comments in turn, indexed to yours:
>
>1) That's fine with me. I tend to agree we need to keep it simple.
>2) Agree in principle, don't yet know about the time commitment estimate: I
>hope not!
>3) Agree in general: KIF is the most expressive language out there and in
>principle is equivalent to OKBC, which is what Protege is based on. There is
>not yet a mapping between KIF/Common Logic and OWL (very shortly to be
>released!), though there is a Protege plugin for DAML+OIL, which is very close
>to OWL. OILed and OntoEdit are alternatives to Protege and can handle
>DAML+OIL, RDF/S. LOOM is an expressive description logic system (incomplete
>vs. Classic, which is not as expressive but complete in formal sense) plus a
>reasoner. But then Protege has some reasoning, i.e., PAL. And OILed has a
>couple of description logic reasoners. OntoEdit has some description logic
>reasoning.
>4) Tools are aligned with languages: see (3).
>5) I hope we can resolve these first two questions (Knowledge representation
>language and tool/s) in much less time: perhaps 7-10 days? Agenda items for
>the telecon next week to resolve? Then tackle and resolve the issues in the
>rest of your (5) the following week? I know this is fast, but I like fast.
>
>Thanks,
>Leo
>
>Patrick Cassidy wrote:
>
> > Suggestions for process:
> >
> > (1) any decisions that cannot be reached by consensus
> > should be decided by majority vote. This requires
> > a list of registered voting members. (I Suggest
> > that any motion and two seconds can force a vote).
> > Don't mess with Robert's rules, they were designed
> > for live meetings. We can make up our own
> > rules.
> > (2) we may need an "executive committee" of members
> > who are willing to commit to some significant
> > allocation of time -- perhaps 5% of full-time
> > (13 full days out of the year)??
> > (3) First order of business should be decision on a
> > format for representing the logical ontology.
> > I would suggest KIF (or SKIF), and perhaps also
> > OWL, since that seems to be where the Semantic Web
> > community is heading. If OWL is not yet ready
> > for serious use (I have no experience at all with
> > description logics), perhaps LOOM?
> > This gets into issues of ease of use. As best
> > I can tell, to use LOOM requires that one install
> > a LISP environment (are there executable versions?)
> > This would inhibit the wide use of the ontology.
> > KIF files can be written by word processor,
> > and they serve to record the intended meanings of
> > concepts adequately.
> > (4) Second order of business would be adopting one or
> > more tools to make the development easier. I like
> > Protege, though I only use its simplest features.
> > If JESS is recommended, I hope that any of us (like me)
> > who have no experience yet with JAVA can have time
> > to learn how to handle it.
> > (5) I would suggest a maximum of one month to decide
> > these two questions. Immediately thereafter,
> > I would hope we can begin discussion of
> > (a) the content of the ontology, starting with
> > the structure of the topmost levels, and resolution
> > of questions such as how to handle relations, roles,
> > abstract objects, and granularity (with special
> > reference to how they apply to the business domain);
> > (b) a decision on whether only one structure will be
> > allowed, or whether alternative representations
> > will be allowed, providing that they are logically
> > compatible and convertible to each other; and
> > (c) the applications(s) that would be used to help
> > keep decisions focused on usability rather than
> > theoretical issues. I hope that at least one
> > natural-language application will be developed.
> > Does anyone work with a parser available for free?
> >
> > As examples of existing ontologies, Open CYC and
> > the SUMO developed as part of the IEEE-Standard Upper
> > Ontology discussions provide different views. Others
> > such as SENSUS and Mikrokosmos exist, but are less
> > easily available. I have made a crude conversion of
> > the Open CYC and SUMO into Protege format -- this
> > provides only the class hierarchy and the attached
> > slots, but does not display relations of order greater
> > than 2 (including binary or higher functions), nor
> > does it display the subsumption relations among
> > the slots. It does provide a good visual display
> > of the general structure of the ontology. The
> > Protege files can be found in the directory:
> > ftp://micra.com/ontolog
> > I am not certain that this conversion is permitted by
> > the CYC permissions, but is seems to be, under the GNU
> > GPL provisions, according to the license paragraph:
> > > The OpenCyc Knowledge Base
> > > The OpenCyc Knowledge Base consists of code, written in the
> > > declarative language CycL, that represents or supports the
> > > representation of facts and rules pertaining to consensus reality.
> > > OpenCyc is licensed using the GNU Lesser General Public License,
> > > whose text can also be found here. The OpenCyc CycL code base is
> > > the "library" referred to in the LGPL license. The terms of this
> > > license equally apply to renamings and other logically equivalent
> > > reformulations of the Knowledge Base (or portions thereof) in any
> > > natural or formal language.
> >
> > An alternative formulation of the upper levels is contained
> > in the ontology I have been developing, available in Protege
> > format at: ftp://micra.com/process/ (files PUOCYC1.*), which
> > include some structures from the Open Cyc ontology. These three
> > ontologies provide some examples of how the upper levels can
> > be very different for different viewpoints. Many other
> > examples are available. Even for the case where we are concerned
> > with a particular domain, such as business, I think it is
> > important that development of a consensus ontology begin
> > with agreement on the main relations and the topmost levels
> > of the ontology.
> >
> > Pat
> >
> > =============================================
> > Patrick Cassidy
> >
> > MICRA, Inc. || (908) 561-3416
> > 735 Belvidere Ave. || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer)
> > Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054 || (908) 668-5904 (fax)
> >
> > internet: cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> > =============================================
> > =============================================
> >
> > Bob Smith wrote:
> > > Kurt, Thanks for the excellent summary!!!
> > >
> > > The 1-2:30pm Weds slot works for me.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Bob Smith
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kurt Conrad
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:54 PM
> > > To: Ontolog Forum
> > > Subject: [ontolog-forum] UBL Process and Project Management
> > >
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > Please respond to this thread with process and project management
> > > options for the UBL Ontology Project.
> > >
> > > For reference purposes, a summary of the ideas which have already
> > > been raised in some form can be found at:
> > >
> > > http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2003-03/msg00045.html#nid025
> > >
> > > /s/ kwc 2003.03.06 23:53
> > >
> > > ___________________________________________________________________
> > > Kurt Conrad
> > > 2994 Salem Dr. 408-247-0454
> > > Santa Clara, CA 95051-5502 408-247-0457 (data/fax)
> > > http://www.SagebrushGroup.com mailto:conrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> > > Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> > > Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> > > To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> > > Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> > > Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> > > To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> > Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> > Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> > To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
>
>--
>_____________________________________________
>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
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (04)
|