Dick, (01)
For anybody who is designing a language for ontology or knowledge
representation, I would strongly recommend the approach of mapping
their favorite notation to CL and/or IKL. Such a mapping would
automatically provide the following advantages: (02)
1. A well-defined semantics based on a Tarski-style model theory. (03)
2. Guaranteed compatibility with the ISO standard for Common Logic. (04)
3. Compatibility with any and every other language that is also
mapped to Common Logic. (That includes the Semantic Web
languages RDFS and OWL, for which Pat Hayes defined a mapping.) (05)
I had presented a model theoretic semantics for conceptual graphs
in my 1984 book, but many extensions had been made that went beyond
the CG core. Therefore, I collaborated with other people who had
similar interests in developing the ISO standard for Common Logic
and a methodology for representing a wide range of CL dialects. (06)
RHM> I have no knowledge of IKL at present, so I don't even know
> if "Location", "Describes", "that" are a good translation. (07)
Common Logic is a "pure" logic that is as ontologically neutral as
possible. Therefore, it has no built-in ontology for time, location,
describing, or anything else. CL doesn't even have a built-in
ontology for set theory. CL does recognize numerals as names, but it
does not have any axioms for relating the numeral 5 to the numerals
4 or 6. The ontology that would define the expected semantics for
those names would have to be added by stating axioms in CL. (There
are many such axioms available, including the ISO standard for the
Z specification language, which could be translated to CL.) (08)
I suggested the names 'Location' and 'Describes' for what you seemed
to need in mKR, but the semantics of those names (or any others you
prefer) would have to be defined by whatever axioms you choose. (09)
IKL extends the CL logic with the operator 'that', which relates
any sentence to a proposition stated by that sentence. (Depending
on your point of view, that could be considered either a logical
or an ontological extension of CL.) (010)
For more information about CL, see the Common Logic web site: (011)
http://www.common-logic.org/ (012)
On that site, you can find a pointer to an introduction to CL,
which I presented at the Semantic Technology conference in 2008; (013)
http://www.common-logic.org/SemTech2008/cl_sowa.pdf (014)
That is the first of a 3-part tutorial, of which the second part
was presented by Chris Menzel: (015)
http://www.common-logic.org/SemTech2008/Menzel-SemTech2008.pdf (016)
Pat Hayes presented the third part of that tutorial, but his slides
aren't on that site. (017)
There is also a pointer to some older slides by Harry Delugach,
which have useful info, but some of the notation is out of date: (018)
http://www.common-logic.org/docs/cl/Berlin_OpenForum_Delugach.pdf (019)
I also wrote a paper on conceptual graphs that includes some English
translated to both the CLIF and CGIF dialects of Common Logic: (020)
http://www.jfsowa.com/cg/cg_hbook.pdf (021)
Most of mKR could be translated to Common Logic, but some of the
statements would require the 'that' operator of IKL. You can find
the IKL user's guide and specifications on the web site by Pat Hayes: (022)
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/IKL/GUIDE/GUIDE.html (023)
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/IKL/SPEC/SPEC.html (024)
John (025)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (026)
|