[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] quadruples talk

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:29:55 -0400
Message-id: <46EDAE63.3090508@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Peter, Patrick, and Chris,    (01)

I'd just like to add a few comments on some of the issues raised
in this thread:    (02)

PFB> As an aside, if CL can perform all the functions you indicate,
 > do we need OMG's Ontology Definition Metamodel? Is CL king of
 > the hill?    (03)

PD> As far as CL being "king of the hill" I would only offer the
 > observation that if project requirements require its use, by all
 > means use it. One can shred paper with a chain saw but I would
 > not recommend it. Choose the tool that is appropriate to what
 > you are trying to do, not on the basis of it being a great tool.    (04)

CM> A better analogy than your chainsaw paper shredder might be
 > a Swiss Army knife, where the bulk of the features lie hidden
 > and you only draw upon the ones you need for the task at hand.    (05)

Metaphors are often helpful, but they can be confusing, if taken
literally.  CL is not suitable for massacres, shredding paper,
or opening cans.  Following are some nonmetaphorical points:    (06)

  1. Common Logic, as Chris suggested, is a very general version
     of logic, but as Patrick said, there may be good reasons
     for using something more specialized, such as Topic Maps,
     the OMG metamodel, the Semantic Web languages, etc.    (07)

  2. For example, CL does not contain any of the specialized
     features that OMG added to their metamodel.  Although
     CL could be used to define those features, that work has
     not been done with CL, and it might be more convenient to
     use tools already designed for the OMG formats.    (08)

  3. On the other hand, if it is necessary to relate multiple
     sources of data in various formats, CL provides a single
     very general version of logic into which the other formats
     can be mapped.  Then they can all be compared on the same
     basis.    (09)

  4. Another reason for using CL is to provide a formal definition
     for some other notation in terms of the CL model theory.  In
     the CL standard, there are three annexes, each of which defines
     the syntax of a different dialect:  CLIF, CGIF, and XCL.  Each
     annex maps its syntax to the general CL semantics, as specified
     in the body of the standard.    (010)

  5. The same procedure as in point #4 can be used to define the
     semantics for many other declarative languages:  just show how
     its syntax can be mapped to the CL semantics.  (Implementing
     a program to do the mapping would be desirable, but just the
     task of specifying a mapping is sufficient for anybody else
     who would care to take on the task of writing the program.    (011)

John    (012)

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    (013)

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