To: | adampease@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
---|---|
From: | MDaconta@xxxxxxx |
Date: | Wed, 6 Aug 2003 23:01:37 EDT |
Message-id: | <1df.e977da6.2c631b11@xxxxxxx> |
Hi Adam, 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. - Mike 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 text below. ------------------------------- Michael C. Daconta Chief Scientist, APG, McDonald Bradley, Inc. www.daconta.net |
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] |