[Top] [All Lists]

Representation - KIF vs Protege [was Re: [ontolog-forum] Personas artic

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Peter P. Yim" <yimpp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 09:41:23 -0700
Message-id: <3F328133.3000905@xxxxxxxxxxx>
I will not question the appropriateness of KIF, in terms of formality 
and expressiveness. On the other hand, we have Protégé, a tool 
familiar with, probably, by the most number of ontology practitioners 
(albeit small as they are already) as substantiated by our own survey 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum//ontolog-forum/2002-11/msg00035.html ) 
and Protégé's user statistics (see: 
http://purpleslurple.cim3.org/ps.php?theurl=http://protege.stanford.edu/#purp169    (01)

).    (02)

Referring, again, to both our [ontolog-forum] charter (see: 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl#nid011 ),
and that of UBL's (see: 
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/charter.php ),
we are out to contribute to solving an e-business industry 
standardization problem. Our solution will need to be adopted and 
applied, if it were to even come close to being successful.    (03)

As such, I am in favor of having our work represented (at least) both 
in KIF and in Protégé (I actually thought that was what we had agreed 
upon before)  -- with both being our normative deliverable.  We need 
to leverage the Protégé users, developers, plug-ins, ... etc.    (04)

Therefore, my suggestion is that we should focus the conversation, not 
on whether its should be KIF or Protégé, but rather, how can we 
deliver BOTH, and in so doing tackle both the science, as well as 
coming up with the engineering solution that is "good enough" to be an 
applicable industry standard -- and, be able to help the industry 
migrate to that solution with ease.    (05)

PPY    (06)

P.S. May I request that we all try to make sure that the discussion is 
consistent with the subject line -- this will greatly facilitate 
future retrieval/re-use of the knowledge, at least by humans. :-)  -ppy
--    (07)

Adam Pease wrote Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:04:49 -0700:
> Mike,
>   My understanding is that first order logic completely subsumes frames 
> and description logics.  So, nothing would be lost by choosing KIF.
> Adam
---    (08)

> At 11:00 AM 8/7/2003 -0400, MDaconta@xxxxxxx wrote:
>> Hi Adam,
>> I agree that the axioms are important to have. Do we lose any frame-based
>> functionality in KIF?
>> Also, as we go through this I would like us to continue to highlight 
>> differences between
>> the approaches.
>> Thanks,
>> - Mike
---    (09)

>> In a message dated 8/6/03 10:36:16 PM, adampease@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>>>    One can't just put off considering the axioms until later, because 
>>> they
>>> depend on the basic terms and relations.  If the terms and relations are
>>> created in a limited frame language, it will be make the axioms very 
>>> hard
>>> to state in a general way later.
>>>    If we agree that axioms are important to have (at some point in the
>>> development process), then its important right now to create a
>>> representation that will accommodate them later.    (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)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>