If the model is created in KIF and then translated to Protege this might
work, but if the model is created in Protege and translated to KIF you'll
have the problems I mentioned analogous to writing C style in C++.
It's good that Protege is familiar, and has a large user community, but
that line of argument could be extended to XML. More people are familiar
with XML. It has a larger user base and tool set, so why not just create
XML rather than worry about ontologies? (01)
At 09:41 AM 8/7/2003 -0700, Peter P. Yim wrote:
>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 (see:
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum//ontolog-forum/2002-11/msg00035.html ) and
>Protégé's user statistics (see:
>Referring, again, to both our [ontolog-forum] charter (see:
>and that of UBL's (see:
>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.
>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.
>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
>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
>Adam Pease wrote Thu, 07 Aug 2003 08:04:49 -0700:
>> My understanding is that first order logic completely subsumes frames
>> and description logics. So, nothing would be lost by choosing KIF.
>>At 11:00 AM 8/7/2003 -0400, MDaconta@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>>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
>>>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.
>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)