John,
Do you have a list of the open-source reasoning engines that support any
of the implementations of CL?
I have a slight acquaintance with the SigmaKEE implementation of Vampire,
but haven't tried any others. If anyone has recommendations, I would like
to learn the pros and cons of other FOL reasoners (not just the speed). (01)
Pat (02)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx (03)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 5:17 PM
> To: ray@xxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Start thinking about the 2008 Ontology
> Summit
>
> Unfortunately, I will be traveling on Jan 3 and won't be able to
> participate in the conference call.
>
> But one point I'd like to make is that we should emphasize the
> availability of Common Logic as an ISO standard and its potential
> to serve as an upward compatible superset of many current notations.
>
> In particular, the CL semantics is already a superset of the semantics
> of RDF(S), OWL, and many other languages of the Semantic Web. CL
> is also web enabled in its support of URIs, and it has an XML-based
> notation called XCL. That means that anything represented in the
> current Semantic Web languages can be automatically translated to CL,
> and the tools can developed as upward compatible extensions to the
> current systems. An important advantage is that XCL notation is more
> concise and readable than RDF notation, even for the same data.
>
> Furthermore, CL can support arbitrary n-tuples. That makes it possible
> to download an arbitrary relational database into CL without the need
> to create special reified nodes. Therefore, a relational DB mapped
> to CL can then be mapped back to exactly the same collection of
> relations. Furthermore, CL can also represent the rules of rule-based
> languages or the database queries and constraints of Datalog.
>
> XCL also has a one-to-one mapping to and from the CLIF and CGIF
> dialects, which are even more concise and readable because they don't
> require all the angle brackets. Therefore, CLIF and CGIF can be
> used as easily readable and typable notations for the data from
> either RDF triples or SQL n-tuples. (For those triples and n-tuples,
> CLIF and CGIF notations are identical.)
>
> In summary, I would recommend that the NIST conference devote some
> sessions to using CL for future extensions to the Semantic Web and
> for interchange with other systems, such as relational databases
> and object-oriented databases.
>
> John Sowa
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|