Yes, this is ticklish and I probably mispoke. In general, OKBC is a knowledge
API
and KIF is a mostly declarative First Order Logic language. So probably we
should
say "weakly equivalent" or a subset of KIF. I don't know that there has been a
formal comparison, actually. So I retract equivalence.
http://www.ai.sri.com/~okbc/okbc-faq/Knowledge_Models/what_is_kif.htm. KIF
contains
an OKBC ontology (which gives it a frame-based representation) and is meant to
be
an expressive KR language, while OKBC is a set of interfaces to potentially
multiple KR systems. (01)
The Protege Axiomatic Language PAL is really closer to KIF (still a subset,
however). Otherwise, there is no direction negation in Protege (except perhaps
in
the implicit built-in handling of datatypes). But there is implicit universal
quantification. The only existential quantification is probably in cardinality
specification. (02)
I don't know, for example, how the Protege plugin for DAML+OIL would handle
complementOf in the latter language. (03)
OKBC is really not a logical language but an set of ways of accessing underlying
knowledge. I think the API could get negated assertions if there were such, but
it
doesn't directly support it. (04)
Leo (05)
Adam Pease wrote: (06)
> 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?
>
> Adam
>
> 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
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (07)
--
_____________________________________________
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 (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|