I'm not really sure what you're asking, nor am I clear on why Cyc's
macro features are relevant. They're certainly not needed for a precise
axiomatic definition of terms.
In a frame system, a slot simply means there's a relation that may be
provided between an instance of the class on which it is defined, and its
filler. In a first order logic system, the relation means exactly what is
specified by its associated axioms. If you want to do the axioms first,
that renders the Protege modelling step irrelevant.
I should also mention that the precise semantics of the general notion
of a Relation is already carefully and axiomatically defined in SUMO. Look
At 10:17 PM 4/17/2003 -0400, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
>I have a suggestion about what I think needs to be done
>even before we get to Adam's step 1, creating an
>ontology in protege. Specifically, we need to
>decide how to specify what the relations between
>the classes (slots in Protege, predicates in SUMO)
>are intended to mean. The meaning of the predicate,
>for example (hasPart Automobile Engine) would need
>to be specified by axioms unless there is a default
>interpretation of such predicates.
> Cyc has one mechanism to simplify the applications
>of axiomatic rules, the RuleMacroPredicate. For
>the "part" predicate, one might use the RuleMacroPredicate
>"relationAllExists", and apply it thus:
>(relationAllExists hasPart Automobile Engine)
>This would mean that for every instance of an Automobile
>there has to be at least one object of class Engine.
>There would have to be additional constraints, such as
>that the Part must be smaller than the whole object.
>We also have to decide whether, e.g. an automobile is still
>an automobile if the engine has been removed for repair --
>i.e. can we say we have an 'Automobile" if it is
>disassembled? We also need to decide how to indicate
>that some objects have optional parts (chrome trim?),
>and I would like to have a mechanism for indicating
>probabilities of relations (this gets into encyclopedic
>knowledge, but we at least need the mechanism even if it
>is not often used in the earliest stages).
> I interpret Adam's suggested methodology to mean that
>we can get into such details later, in stage 2, but
>I think that they should be tackled at the earliest stage,
>since the relations are central to the interpretation of
>he meanings of the classes. We don't need to get into
>philosophical dialogues, but we do need some firm
>criteria for deciding whether we do or don't have an
>automobile in our garage at any given time.
> I will be away for the next week and will check
>back when I return.
>Leo Obrst wrote:
>>Thanks for your suggestions, Adam. They are indeed useful. It would have
>>been close to what I would have expressed, had I a bit more time (though,
>>hedging a bit more on the upper ontology ;) ).
>>Folks, these are useful guidelines.
>>Adam Pease wrote:
>MICRA, Inc. || (908) 561-3416
>735 Belvidere Ave. || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer)
>Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054 || (908) 668-5904 (fax)
>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:
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)