>Dear Antoinette,
>
>Well I think this is only part of what you need to look at. Logic
>based ontology languages have elements that are both classes and
>instances. (01)
Not all of them, and in fact the DL folk argue
strongly against this. OWL-DL for example
prohibits classes as instances, though they have
work-arounds to handle some tricky cases. Common
Logic is of course totally unrestricted in this
regard, and allows anything. In CL, a class can
be an instance of itself (example: rdfs:Class in
RDFS). (02)
>When you translate that into a database, the instances
>become database records. Therefore there is a key design decision
>about what in your ontology to have in the database structure, and
>what to hold as data.
>
>Apart from that, and looking at what Chris mentions below, my
>experience is that different languages have different capabilities
>and limitations, and you need to first of all look at the limitations
>in your source format, and try to make sure when you translate, not
>to introduce the unintended limiations from the first language in
>the second. (03)
Amen to that :-) (04)
>
>Regards
>
>Matthew
>
>PS. Note to Chris on contradictions:
>
>Data models are ontologies (05)
Really?? Matthew, what IS a 'data model', exactly? (06)
>Common Logic has a Data Model (07)
There is a formalization of CL *syntax* in a
'datamodelling' formalism. I'm sure this will be
useful to someone, but it really is only useful
for parsing CL, not for interpreting it. It is a
description of a class of labelled tree
structures, in fact. Seems to me this is about
the same information that you would have by
simply writing CL in XML, just expressed in a
different formalism. (08)
>Therefore Common logic is NOT an ontology??? (09)
As I understand it, an ontology is, or is
semantically equivalent to, a particular logical
theory of something. CL is not a logical theory
of anything, its the logic (more properly, the
abstract logic) in which an ontology can be
written. Now, you could imagine having an
ontology of CL syntax, where the actual topic was
the syntax. That would be like the data model
mentioned above, but re-construed as an ontology.
But (a) this doesnt seem very interesting, (b) it
doesn't make the logic itself into an ontology,
only its syntax, and (c) in fact, its not easy to
do. There are some technical problems connected
with how to represent recursively defined
structures in an assertional logic. You could do
it in CL, just, and awkwardly, because CL extends
strict FO logic (by the sequence marker
construction) but you couldn't do this in strict
first-order CL (i.e. in a "compact dialect"). (010)
Pat (011)
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Arsic,
>> Antoinette
>> Sent: 20 October 2006 17:05
>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology and Databases
>>
>>
>> Yes, that better rephrases my question.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Antoinette
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> Antoinette Arsic , Information Scientist, M.S.
>> The MITRE Corporation
>> 703-983-5286 (office)
>> 443-567-2703 (cell)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>> Christopher Menzel
>> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 11:44 AM
>> To: [ontolog-forum]
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology and Databases
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2006, at 6:48 AM, Arsic, Antoinette wrote:
>> > I'm in desperate need of knowledge on how to move from an ontology
>> > to a
>> > data model or how to develop the two together - I'm in a position
>> > where
>> > we are developing the ontology and data model simutaneously (uggh),
>> > just because that is how it has to be.
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand the question. From a logical point of
>> view, a well-defined data model just *is* a type of ontology. So,
>> from that perspective, to develop a data model is to develop an
>> ontology. I'm suspecting therefore that your question has to
> > do more
>> with how to express the same ontology (in the logical sense) in both
>> a specific data modeling language like ER and a specific ontology
>> language like OWL-DL. Is that your question?
>>
>> Chris Menzel
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
> (012)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
|