Note that the DAML+OIL plugin for Protégé is not fully functional for entering
complex DL concept descriptions. OilEd is the only game in town for that. If
you need them, then this will be a factor. (01)
Mike (02)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Leo Obrst
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 1:02 PM
To: cassidy@xxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] UBL Process and Project Management (03)
Good comments, Pat. Some comments in turn, indexed to yours: (04)
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. (05)
Thanks,
Leo (06)
Patrick Cassidy wrote: (07)
> 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
> (08)
--
_____________________________________________
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 (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|