Ed, (01)
I certainly agree with that point: (02)
> The highest price, and the one most often paid in languages
> like KIF, is that your model will fail to communicate your
> understanding to your target audience, because no one can
> easily "grok" the model as formalized. (03)
But the SemWebbers succeeded in making KIF look readable by
inventing the most unreadable formats ever inflicted upon
a significant number of users. (04)
As an example, following is the KIF (or CLIF) representation
for a list of RDF triplets: (05)
(and
(R1 A1 B1)
(R2 A2 B2)
(R3 A3 B3)
. . .
(Rn An Bn)) (06)
The SemWebbers respond to this point by saying that they have
developed humanly readable notations for making RDF and OWL
more readable. I would respond with two points: (07)
1. Any notation that is so unreadable that even professionals
must use such aids is seriously flawed from the beginning. (08)
2. There are many different such tools, different people
use different ones, and many, if not most, users are
forced to read the unreadable. (09)
There are often good reasons for inventing new notations,
but it would be helpful to make them interoperable and
automatically translatable to anybody's favorite human
or machine-oriented notation. (010)
Following is a diagram that illustrates that point: (011)
http://www.jfsowa.com/figs/comlog.gif (012)
John (013)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (014)
|
