Dear Ian, (01)
> PS - IDEAS is higher order, (02)
MW: Actually it probably isn't. You would need to get someone like Chris
Menzel to explain, but having classes with members that are classes that
have members that are individuals is apparently not enough to make it
higher order. If I understood correctly this is because you can do a
transformation into a first order form, by using a classification
> and extensional. It's founding
> categories are
> individual (something with spatio-temporal extent), type and tuple.
> I can
> see how CL handles type and tuple (albeit through some arcane
> notion, (04)
MW: CL is an abstract syntax. The concrete syntaxes actually include a
graphical notation - conceptual graphs. If you chose, you could probably
map the ideas notation to the CL abstract syntax, or a subset of it. (05)
> probably starting with "for all..."), but it doesn't seem to have a
> fundamental category of something with spatio-temporal extent. (06)
MW: It does not have to. It just has not made that commitment, and
should not either, CL is a language not an ontology. It does not prevent
you from declaring that there are individuals that are spatio-temporal
> that's the
> criterion on which the entire ontology is founded, I think I'd
> rather use a
> notation that is also founded on this principle. (08)
MW: Well the advantage of that for you is that you will be able to make
convenient diagrams. The disadvantage is that no-one who is not a 4
dimensionalist will want to use your notation. (09)
> Maybe we just
> built the
> right wheel for what we're doing, instead of re-inventing one. (010)
MW: Well if it's a graphical notation, chances are it's just boxes and
lines again. (011)
Tel: +44 560 302 3685
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in
England and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (014)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 27 October 2009 20:16
> To: ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology modules and namespaces
> What I am suggesting is that the IDEAS group avoid re-inventing
> a half-vast wheel:
> > I suspect IDEAS can tick most of your boxes already:
> > 1) We develop IDEAS in UML, strictly profiled to the IDEAS ontic
> > categories
> > 2) We can export the UML model into RDFS/OWL, XSDs (for the US
> > and RDBMS
> People constantly say things that and they add the following:
> > We've not had any requirement for CL.
> Then they implement some half-vast special case that supports only
> those features that are in the requirements. Later, they discover
> some new requirements, and they keep adding patch, after patch,
> after patch, after patch, ad nauseam.
> > I'm not really convinced that logic notations are the best way
> > to express ontologies. Personally, I find them
> > but I realise logicians love their squiggles and AI folks love
> > their parentheses.
> I sympathize with that sentiment. But everybody who makes that
> claim ends up with something that has the full expressive power
> of logic, but in a notation that is much more difficult to learn,
> to read, to write, and to implement.
> Note that those slides emphasize *Controlled English*, which
> also happens to be popular in military circles -- and in retail.
> Please look at the Tesco.com example in slides 75 to 78:
> The IVIS company that originally implemented that application had
> started with RDF and OWL, but it was impossible for Tesco employees
> to make updates. They had to call an RDF and OWL expert for every
> change they wanted to make. But the new version, which uses
> controlled English mapped to the CGIF dialect of Common Logic,
> allows Tesco employees to enter and modify their business rules.
> The SQL WHERE clause, for example, has the full expressive power
> of FOL, but in a notation that is vastly more complex to read,
> write, and implement than any common notation for logic.
> UML also has a contorted notation for FOL called the Object
> Constraint Language (OCL), which is another half-vast patch
> that ends up being more difficult to read, write, and implement
> than any typical notation for FOL.
> You can still use SQL, UML, and the Semantic Web languages.
> But with Common Logic and Controlled English, you have a
> user interface designed for people who are not logicians or
> My recommendation is to submit those slides as a new requirement
> to the IDEAS group. This isn't blue-sky research. The systems
> cited and discussed in those slides are implemented and deployed.
> And the users (who are *not* logicians) love them.
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-
> 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
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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 (016)