Rich, (01)
I'm glad that you found the references useful. (02)
RC> Semantic modeling of sentence structure in a relational
> format, such as JSON, seems like a fruitful area to look at.
> XML is a great exchange level language, but JSON might be
> more amenable to representing sentence structure and semantics
> in relational forms. (03)
But I'd like to clarify some points: (04)
1. Any notation for logic is a good "exchange level language". (05)
2. The GML-SGML-HTML-XML family of languages were initially
developed in 1969 as notations for tagging documents, and
that is still their "sweet spot". (06)
3. Document tagging languages are best for applications where
the amount of text is much greater than the amount of
tagging. But when the tags are greater than the text,
they become extremely verbose, redundant, and unreadable. (07)
4. JavaScript has demonstrated an excellent compromise for
putting large volumes of language-like data in documents:
Use the <script> ... </script> tags to separate the
language from the document. (08)
5. The W3C made a major blunder with a one-size-fits-all
approach that tried to use a document tagging language
as a knowledge representation language. The result was
the *worst* notation for logic ever invented. (09)
Following is a an example of OWL from slide #22 of a talk
by Pat Hayes ( http://is.gd/1ehQK ): (010)
<owl:Class rdf:id="#ChildOfUSCitizenPost1955">
<owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#parentOf" />
<owl:allValuesFrom>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#isCitizenOf" />
<owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#USA" />
</owl:Restriction>
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#dateOfBirth" />
<owl:allvaluesFrom rdf:resource="#YearsSince1955" />
</owl:Restriction>
</owl:intersectionOf>
</owl:Class> (011)
Following is Pat's translation from OWL to an equivalent language,
which we might call OWL-CL: (012)
(= ChildOfUSCitizenPost1955
(And (AllAre parentOf (MustBe isCitizenOf USA))
(AllAre dateOfBirth YearsSince1955) ) (013)
OWL-CL is exactly equivalent to OWL, and any software that generates
or uses OWL can be adapted to generate or use OWL-CL. But OWL-CL
happens to be expressed in the CLIF dialect of Common Logic. It
assumes some extra relations that are not primitive in CL, such
as And, AllAre, and MustBe. Each of those can be defined by a
one-line axiom written in CL. (014)
If you want to embed OWL-CL in a web page, you just use the pair
of tags <script lang=OWLCL> ... </script> . (015)
The proposal I made is upward compatible with the current
Semantic Web: (016)
1. Adopt ISO 24707 Common Logic as the semantic foundation for all
languages of the Semantic Web. (017)
2. Provide new notations for OWL, such as OWL-CL, and for RDF,
such as RDF-CL and RDF-JSON. (018)
3. Allow the users to choose the original RDF and OWL definitions
or the -CL or -JSON alternatives. (019)
4. Define new versions of logic as subsets of CL or IKL as needed.
For each such logic, there could be completely XML-ified versions
if anyone felt a need for them. (020)
5. But as exchange formats for large amounts of logic, the -CL
forms or the -JSON forms would be preferred. (021)
John (022)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (023)
|