I was really looking for examples of DL and FOL semantic
patterns. But, there seems to be some interest in non-FOL examples. I’ll
cite 2 without going into details:
Richard Montage’s Universal Grammar makes use of typed,
higher order intensional logic over possible worlds to deal with phenomena such
as tense, aspect and belief.
Lotfi Zadeh’s Fuzzy Logic – an extension of FOL with
“possibilities” and a “possibility calculus” as a way
to deal with approximate reasoning, such as concluding that “Harry is
tall” from a fuzzy segmentation of the distribution of heights in a “comparable”
population and the fact that “Harry is 6’2” tall”.
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ali Hashemi
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic patterns and logic _expression_
Would it be possible for you to share the things you refer to here:
"I have found a very few things that I had trouble expressing in FOL, and
they were not very important. "
I don't think anyone has nailed down quite what the phrase "semantic
pattern" means. I've employed the term logical structure, which
corresponds to recurring sets of axioms that cut across domains. This _may_ be
similar to what you're looking for.
My general impression is that there is no _a priori_ method in determining what
these patterns are, since the number of axioms you could generate in FOL is
infinite, and only a subset fit to our uses in the world.
The approach employed in COLORE at uncovering these "semantic
patterns" (correct me if i've misinterpreted your intention) is to first
and foremost, and i can't stress this enough...
start writing axioms in FOL!
Once we have these intuitions formalized, we can see if there are recurring
patterns. As I alluded to in a previous note, we've also developed a procedure
which would seek out and determine relationships between different ontologies /
modules. If many, disparate ontologies seem to be using the same sets of
logical axioms (with differing labels), then perhaps they constitute a
Another element of our approach is that the field of mathematics has already
formalized and characterized a lot of the useful statements we can make in a
formal language such as FOL. So it suggested to us to start inputting
ontologies for these well understood theories and then see how they were being
reused in other fields. I'm writing another note to this forum which will
expand on interoperability given the expressiveness of the language.
Lastly, from the DL perspective, there is wonderful work being done at http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Main_Page
; perhaps that is also what you are referring to!
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Jim Rhyne <jrr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I was making an inquiry, not a challenge.
As a practical matter, since I am a technical consultant for hire, I do not
always get to choose the formalism I work in, and I and the client have to
live with the consequences.
I have found a very few things that I had trouble expressing in FOL, and
they were not very important. These could have been failures of creativity
on my part. I put that in the note to see if others have had similar
Still, it would be interesting to me to have a catalog of "semantic
patterns" (whatever those might be) and their _expression_ in FOL (or CLIF,
...). Do you agree with that?