Re: [ontolog-forum] Logical Language and English

[Adrian Walker <adrianw@xxxxxxxx>]

Adam --

Thanks for your comments, below.   

You wrote: "...IBL as far as I can see isn't using a logical
language."

The logical basis for the IBL is in Backchain Iteration: Towards a
Practical Inference Method that is Simple Enough to be Proved
Terminating, Sound and Complete. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 11:1-22,
and in the earlier papers that it references.  There's a
model/fixpoint theory, an interpreter/compiler, and proofs that the i/c
implements the model theory.  

So, I would argue that the  IBL is using a logical language,
in quite a strong sense.  The "Semantic Web Presentation"
at
www.reengineeringllc.com
argues further that binding English to a solid logical basis like this is going to be essential in the real world.

Of course, we would all like to see a solution to the "big AI problem" of rigorously understanding all of natural language.  The IBL FAQs mention that this is difficult.  But meanwhile, the hope is that our system provides something reliable and useful, and perhaps a pointer to new approaches to the big problem.

Thanks in advance for any further discussion.

        

        

        

        

Best,  -- Adrian

                                           INTERNET BUSINESS LOGIC
 
                                             www.reengineeringllc.com
             
Dr. Adrian Walker
Reengineering LLC
PO Box 1412
Bristol
CT 06011-1412 USA

Phone: USA 860 583 9677
Cell:    USA  860 830 2085
Fax:    USA  860 314 1029




At 07:29 PM 1/1/04 -0800, you wrote:

Adrian,
  Specifying rules in a natural language has long been a goal of programming language research and AI, but a very elusive one.  IBL however looks like yet another attempt to put some simple syntactic sugar on top of SQL.  This is potentially useful, but a very different issue from the need to use a formal logical language to capture semantics, rather than capturing syntax.  IBL as far as I can see isn't using a logical language.

Adam

At 09:29 PM 1/1/2004 -0500, Adrian Walker wrote:

Adam --

You wrote.... FWIW, my take is that topic maps are yet another syntax specification, lacking any logical semantics. So OWL, KIF or any other logical language is appropriate for capturing semantics (meaning), while topic maps are not. One can convert syntax and labels from one to the other, but semantics will be lost.

You may be interested in the "Semantic Web Presentation" at www.reengineeringllc.com .  It argues that there is yet another dimension to "semantics" -- namely that it's going to be necessary to use plain English computationally on top of whatever logical language is chosen.

The examples in the presentation can be run (and changed) by pointing a browser to the same site.

Hope this is of interest.     Cheers,  -- Adrian



                                           INTERNET BUSINESS LOGIC

                                             www.reengineeringllc.com

Dr. Adrian Walker
Reengineering LLC
PO Box 1412
Bristol
CT 06011-1412 USA

Phone: USA 860 583 9677
Cell:    USA  860 830 2085
Fax:    USA  860 314 1029






_________________________________________________________________
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

_________________________________________________________________
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