|Date:||Wed, 6 Aug 2003 23:01:37 EDT|
After looking at the reasons for KIF (trinary predicates, negation, and lack of axioms),
it seems to me that all those cases you mention refer to axioms or rules which was
to be step 8 of our process. I still don't see why protege cannot be used to
represent the majority of our classes and properties (our facts) and then
we move to KIF to implement our axioms and rules per Step 8. Also, those cases
you mention that affect facts (trinary relations and negation) seem to be either
corner cases or of indeterminate importance to our modeling.
I am not opposed to KIF but I am not yet convinced that starting with frames biases
the process in the wrong direction.
In a message dated 8/6/03 9:47:38 AM, adampease@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
I've posted my summary of the reasons we had for our original consensus
to use first order logic for the ontolog effort. I've also included the
Michael C. Daconta
Chief Scientist, APG, McDonald Bradley, Inc.
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Personas article URL, Adam Pease|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Personas article URL, Adam Pease|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Personas article URL, Adam Pease|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Personas article URL, Adam Pease|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|