Peter, Barry, All -- (01)
Some naive questions please. (02)
In reading your excellent discussion about Concept Maps and Topic Maps,
the thought arises -- Is there a denotation for all this notation? (You
may remember the Logic-in-AI slogan "no notation without denotation"). (03)
In other words: (04)
Are there theories that say what consequences are supposed to follow
from any schema + instances Map? (05)
If so, is negation monotonic or non-mon? (06)
Are there inference methods that implement such theories? (07)
Are there systems in which one can query and 'run' machine notations
corresponding to the maps?
E.g. can I ask whether a new instance I have in mind conforms to a schema? (08)
Thanks in advance for educating me about this. -- Adrian Walker (09)
-- (010)
Internet Business Logic (R)
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
Shared, community use is FREE (011)
Reengineering, PO Box 1412, Bristol, CT 06011-1412, USA (012)
Phone 860 583 9677 Mobile 860 830 2085 Fax 860 314 1029 (013)
Peter F Brown wrote: (014)
>Barry:
>The simple answer is "Yes" (even if I suspect a trap here somewhere!):
>Association types "InstanceOf", "is-a", are built into the standard with
>well defined Published Subject Indicators (PSIs) already. Using those is
>standard.
>
>TM allows to create whatever levels you wish. You would perhaps have a
>different association type to connect 'types' from the association type to
>connect 'instances'. i.e. Types may be explicitly typed themselves as a
>'Topic Type', thus the allowed role players in the class level adjacent_to
>would be only topics of type 'Topic Type'.
>
>(Thanks to Graham Moore from NetworkedPlanet for help on this)
>
>Peter
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
|