[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Is there something I missed?

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 10:26:52 -0500
Message-id: <4985BF3C.70106@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Alex,    (01)

I sometimes write as a theoretician, sometimes as a tool developer,
sometimes as an application developer, and sometimes as an end user.    (02)

 > we choose OWL-DL as there are reasoners for it...    (03)

As an application developer, I would agree that availability
of suitable tools is an extremely high priority.    (04)

 > And if we are talking about translation to Prolog for reasoning
 > (your slide 25) - well, I heard that DL-reasoner is a little bit
 > more clever;)    (05)

That is advertising hype from the people who are pushing OWL.
Have you talked with any application developers who had voluntarily
switched to OWL from Prolog or any FOL reasoning system?    (06)

Many of the largest groups that need the utmost in performance
and sophistication translate RDF and OWL *to* Prolog in order
to improve performance, flexibility, and ease of use.    (07)

At VivoMind, we use three primary implementation languages:
Java for the user interface, Prolog for sophisticated reasoning
and for implementing reasoners, and C or C++ for stable routines
that require the highest possible speed.    (08)

For knowledge representation, our primary notation is Common Logic,
of which conceptual graphs are the main dialect we use.  We also
translate controlled English to conceptual graphs or directly to
Prolog clauses.  We have some high-performance graph processing
algorithms implemented in C++, and the VivoMind Prolog we use also
has some high-performance optimizations for processing graphs and
other kinds of data we use.    (09)

We use any RDF and OWL that anybody gives us and use Prolog to
compile it into either Prolog clauses or Common Logic.  It takes
*less time* for us to translate OWL to Prolog than most OWL
processors take just to load OWL.  For reasoning with data
translated from OWL, our Prolog system runs an order of magnitude
faster than the native OWL processors.    (010)

We also use Mathematica for testing our mathematical algorithms.
After we have the algorithms written and tested, we translate them
to either Prolog or C++.  Our Prolog can also link to Mathematica
so that we can test algorithms written in Mathematica *before* we
translate them to C++.    (011)

We're not complaining about the Semantic Web -- we're building
the next generation systems that the Semantic Webbers could have
built if they had read the literature.  It's very nice when your
competitors are using obsolete technology.    (012)

John    (013)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (014)

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