I've just spent a couple of hours playing around with the new releases of
Protege (2.0) and the OWL plugin (1.0). A bit overwhelming at first, but
generally very nice indeed. (01)
Some notes:
http://dannyayers.com/archives/002256.html (02)
btw, although the Description Logics of OWL only cover a small part of FOL,
the people behind it believe that it's around the right compromise between
expressiveness and tractability for the web environment - which shouldn't be
surprising, that's what it's been designed for ;-) (03)
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/ (04)
Cheers,
Danny. (05)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Patrick
> Cassidy
> Sent: 05 February 2004 18:34
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] [Fwd: [dao-forum] Ontology Editor and
> Browser]
>
>
> Kenneth --
> Your question may provoke a debate;
>
> > I am not totally clear on the distinctions between formal logic
> > representation and symbolic reasoning systems.
>
> Adam Pease appears to have some fairly specific requirements for
> what can pass as a "representation" and doesn't think that
> Protege qualifies. I like to make a clear distinction between
> (1) a static set of data in some machine-readable format and
> (2) the procedural code which interprets the data and reasons with
> it. There are, however development systems which include both
> data-storage and some reasoning ability. Protege is one of those,
> but the reasoning available in Protege is minimal and the formal
> logical model will not support full first-order logic --
> therefore unless it is modified, a KIF (or SKIF, a variant of KIF)
> file will not necessarily be interpreted properly by the
> internal reasoning facility of Protege.
> My goal is to add **just enough** additional reasoning ability
> to Protege in order to:
> (1) provide a perspicuous and logically sound visual representation
> of the knowledge available in a SKIF file;
> (2) enable convenient editing of a knowledge base and allow it to
> be re-exported to its original SKIF format.
>
> Thus far, I think I have accomplished (1), but doing (2) is months
> away. So for now, the Protege facility can be used as a browser, but
> not as an editor -- it can't re-export into SKIF format. As a
> browser, it helps *me* to understand relations within an ontology
> in a way that the other browsers we have available don't. I hope
> it will also be useful to others.
>
> As for RDF/OWL, I haven't tried to use these representations, so
> I can't speak knowledgeably about them. There is a Protege
> plug-in under development that can import and export OWL-format
> files. So if and when I or someone else develops a way to export
> Protege files to KIF, Protege might be usable as an interlingua
> to move from SKIF to OWL format -- though a direct conversion might
> be better when it is developed. But there are probably lots
> of sticking points on specific logical structures that could
> make full translation difficult. That will become evident over
> time. For me, I only get the motivation to learn new
> file formats if I have on hand an application that requires
> it. If anyone knows of a freely-available application
> that uses OWL (and does something useful with the data),
> I would appreciate the reference.
>
> For now, in spite of spending time on the SKIF/Protege format
> conversion, I am most interested in the actual conceptual content
> of the knowledge bases we are developing, with a strong preference
> for rapidly coming to an agreement on the upper-level concepts
> that can handle a wide range of specific domains. Invoices looks
> like a good specialized domain to start with, and so we proceed.
>
> Pat
> ================================
>
> Kenneth Fields wrote:
>
> > This is optimal! This would settle the issue of browsing -
> Sigma browser.
> > I am not totally clear on the distinctions between formal logic
> > representation and symbolic reasoning systems. I don't ask for a
> > tutorial on that matter here - I'll go do my homework on that. But I
> > assume KIF is the standard for the former and RDF / OWL for the latter.
> > In thinking about deliverables, we want to the ontology representation
> > to be both logically solid for computation and semantically
> (Web) useful.
> >
> > What does Adam mean when he says he has 'built' ontologies in Sigma - I
> > don't see the editing capability like Ontolingua does.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> >
> >
> > On Feb 5, 2004, at 8:39 AM, Peter Yim wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for the update, Pat.
> >>
> >> > [Pat] I have not yet started to build an Export-to-KIF
> >> > method in the Protege SKIF tab. ...
> >> > ... So until there is a visible demand for it
> >> > (e.g. several ontolog people actually building an ontology and
> >> > wanting to use Protege) I will concentrate on getting the
> >> > details of the importing polished, ...
> >>
> >> By cross posting to the [dao-forum] here, let's see what the
> >> interest/demand level is from our friends at [dao].
> >>
> >> -ppy
> >> --
> --
> =============================================
> 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/
> 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 (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|