Adam Pease wrote: (01)
> Pat,
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> Adam
>
mm1: Everyone, I can appreciate each of you is compassionate about your
position and the need to use either approach. However, for those of us
just learning and trying to grasp these concepts, I think this is a bit
overwhelming. Can we concentrate on the core set of goals we need to
achieve and the use of tools that can help us get there? Thank you. (02)
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post:
> mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (04)
|