[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Axioms in Protege

To: cassidy@xxxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Adam Pease <adampease@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:03:01 -0700
Message-id: <>
   I'm not sure why there is disagreement on this issue.  I don't consider 
the axioms in Protege to be part of its "representation" because you can't 
state them in the Protege language - you can only include them in a 
comment.  Do you believe that first order logic axioms can be "represented" 
in XML, because the text can be in a comment?    (01)

Adam    (02)

At 01:17 PM 8/14/2003 -0400, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
>    The VNC viewer is amazing!  It works beautifully,
>and could serve as a collaborative environment for developing
>the ontology, if that is what this group would want.
>    Adam is certainly correct (and I have said the same thing) that
>the Ontology browser gives more complete information about
>the SUMO ontology than the current port into Protege.  I have
>no reason to duplicate that kind of effort, so I have not
>attempted to make comprehensive references from each class
>and slot to all of the axioms that mention them.  I view
>the strength of Protege as providing a screen that summarizes
>the main conceptual components of each class, giving one view
>that can help understand the meaning of each class and its
>primary relations to other concepts.
>    At this early point where we are trying to organize the UBL
>concepts into a formal ontology, I think that Protege can be
>helpful in clarifying the basic components of each UBL
>concept.  I find the SUMO browser also useful to search for
>related concepts in SUMO.  To use that effectively, we
>would need some method to collaboratively modify the
>file (I presume it's a KIF file?) that the browser uses
>as the knowledge base.
>    If, after some experimenting, this group decides that using
>Protege as the development environment is a good idea,
>it will be necessary to create an accurate utility to
>convert the Protege file into a KIF representation.
>I haven't tried to do that and won't try in the near
>future unless this group decides to use Protege as the
>main development tool, or someone provides a business
>application that uses a KIF file.
>    Adam apparently doesn't consider the axioms in Protege to be a
>   [Adam pease] Protege can't represent SUMO's axioms.  The field into 
> which you've entered them is essentially a comment field.
>    I don't particularly care what one calls the axioms in Protege,
>they can be accurately extracted and added to a KIF file.  There
>are other potential problems in the Protege representation, such
>as the lack of direct support for instances of multiple classes.
>There is a work-around, but I haven't looked at it carefully yet
>to determine if it would accurately reproduce a KIF file used
>as the canonical representation.
>    At this point one thing that I have not considered in
>using Protege is how to organize the concepts within
>"modules" or "microtheories".  For the Invoice ontology, we
>probably can view that as a single microtheory, so this
>issue is not likely to be a problem at this early stage.
>     Pat
>Peter P. Yim wrote:
>>2. Once again, I've hoisted your work over to the VNC server (which we 
>>can use for our meeting(s), and for people who don't have a Protégé setup 
>>on their computer to view and play around with.
>Patrick Cassidy
>MICRA, Inc.                      || (908) 561-3416
>735 Belvidere Ave.               || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer)
>Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054        || (908) 668-5904 (fax)
>internet:   cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>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    (03)

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