[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer Cake

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Randall R Schulz <rschulz@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 21:05:28 -0700
Message-id: <200708062105.29010.rschulz@xxxxxxxxx>
On Monday 06 August 2007 19:23, Mills Davis wrote:
> Thanks Randall.
> Yes. Most of what we have been working with are separate description
> logic inference engines, rules engines, and SQL engines linked to
> separate applications, so we find ourselves talking about hybrid
> reasoning solution. So, by tooling (and independent of performance
> considerations), I'm envisioning software solutions that would enable
> us to bring these different formalisms, or subsets of FOL under one
> environment.    (01)

As a very generic statement, that could characterize our approach, as 
well. Surely the use of relational database content (interpreted as 
ground assertions) and description logic are both subsets of FOL that 
interest us.    (02)

> My understanding is that your support of CLIF lets you 
> express whatever it is that the originating applications are working
> with in a CL interchangeable way.    (03)

I think CL interchangeability is ill-defined, at this point. Just as 
reliable interoperability of the TCP / IP protocols took several years 
to iron out, I expect the same to be true of Common Logic. The 
specification is (apparently intentionally) loose and minimally 
specified, and unless it is tightened up, there will be, at best, 
bilateral interchangeability of content. By that I mean that pairs of 
particular CL applications will be able to successfully exchange CL 
content (probably by prior arrangement), but generic, arbitrary 
exchange is unlikely to succeed unless the standard is made more 
explicit.    (04)

> So, it sounds like you have a full 
> CL inference engine. Also, are you implementing the IKL extensions?    (05)

We have full, first-order logic with identity (often called "equality") 
and an ever-growing complement of specialized optimizations, some of 
which are generic, in the sense that they do not compromise 
completeness of first-order predicate calculus, and others that are 
only valid for restrictions or special cases of FOL (e.g., the unique 
names assumption).    (06)

IKL interests us, to be sure. We are studying it and contemplate 
implementing it.    (07)

Randall Schulz    (08)

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    (09)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>