[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] KIF vs. Protege - part deux

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Adam Pease <adampease@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:20:16 -0700
Message-id: <>
   I read the following summary from Kurt on today's minutes -    (01)

"The position that Leo and the other participants at last week's conference 
call took was that Protege is an appropriate starting point because of 
offers a number of practical advantages. "    (02)

If you agree with this summary, what do you think are those practical 
advantages, and how do you address the issue I stated in a message from 
8/19 (copied below)    (03)

   For example, let's say an order is for 2 Meters of 5cm by 5cm lumber, 
and there's a US supplier for this product.  We'd like to have axioms that 
define these units, and support conversion.  SUMO has the axiom    (04)

   (instance ?NUMBER RealNumber)
     (MeasureFn ?NUMBER Inch)
     (MeasureFn (MultiplicationFn ?NUMBER 0.02539999969303608) Meter)))    (05)

Since Protege can't handle functions, you'd have to rewrite this axiom, 
probably hard-coded as a procedural attachment, as opposed to expressed 
declaratively.  If it were just an issue of rewriting one axiom, it 
wouldn't be a big deal, but there are hundreds of uses of MeasureFn in 
SUMO, not to mention all the uses of other functions and expressions that 
can't be represented in Protege.  Your answer seems to be to include them 
in comments, but the issue is not limited to comments.  If we represent the 
example in SUMO and KIF we have something like    (06)

(orderItem LumberOrder27 OrderItem23)
(item OrderItem23 LumberObject4)
(length LumberObject4 (MeasureFn 2 Meter))    (07)

Now, if you try to represent this in Protege, you're stuck, because you 
can't use the function.  As you can see, this problem is not solved by 
including the axiom in a comment, because the terms in those axioms need to 
be used.  To capture this same information in Protege, we'd wind up with 
something like    (08)

(orderItem LumberOrder27 OrderItem23)
(item OrderItem23 LumberObject4)
(length LumberObject4 "2 Meters")    (09)

or slightly better:    (010)

(orderItem LumberOrder27 OrderItem23)
(item OrderItem23 LumberObject4)
(length LumberObject4 Measure7)
(unit Measure7 Meter)
(value Measure7 2)    (011)

Now the problem is that those terms are totally unconnected to SUMO 
axioms.  The new relations of "unit" and "value" are redundant with SUMO's 
MeasureFn, and lack all the axioms which define MeasureFn.    (012)

The result of this is a large amount of duplication of effort.  You might 
as well discard SUMO and start from scratch, which would of course mean a 
lot of waste.
----------------------------------------    (013)

Adam    (014)

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    (015)

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