[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: cassidy@xxxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Adam Pease <adampease@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 11:59:25 -0700
Message-id: <>
Pat,    (01)

At 01:30 AM 8/9/2003 -0400, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
>I am exceedingly reluctant to get into a prolonged
>discussion of representation formats, but since assertions
>have been made that I think are not correct, I will
>state my views.
>As best I can tell, Protege has mechanisms that will
>permit us to include everything that can be stated in
>KIF.    (02)

I'll try to answer in more detail later, but this is just plain 
false.  Protege is a frame language.  It can't represent ternary or 
high-arity relations, quantification etc.  The only way one could interpret 
this statement as being true would be a trivial one in which one can 
include the axioms in comments.  In that sense Forth, XML, SQL, CLASSIC etc 
are all, doxastic, modal, deontic, higher order logics, with probabilistic 
features, because you can put anything in a comment string.    (03)

Adam    (04)

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    (05)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>