"Ali Hashemi" <ali.hashemi+ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm a bit embarrassed to have to add this qualification, but the
> "criticism"
> i'm anticipating and responding to here seems to pop-up like clockwork on
> this forum. So before people jump on my statement of : (01)
>> "...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." (02)
Such ontologies have been written. Why re-invent this wheel? (03)
> ... They reflect a
> large category of theories that are very well developed and understood
> with
> a huge base of support and applications pretty much everywhere, so it
> seems
> like a great (or if you like, partial) starting point for a family of
> interlingua ontologies in a repository. (04)
A math ontology would certainly be a useful part of an FO. (05)
> (Mathematical theories certainly have far more widespread applications,
> adoption, integration and practical in-use experience than OpenCyc :P. (06)
Research Cyc has the theories. OpenCyc merely has the concepts. It would
be nice if Cycorp would release their encoding of such theories . (07)
> <---
> note.. this statement isn't meant to imply that OpenCyc shouldn't be
> included, just to point out that there we already are using a lot of the
> same basic structures again and again, except, instead of "top-down
> upperontologies" it's bottom-up logical foundations :D:D) (08)
I thought mathematics was defined in a top-down fashion. 8)# (09)
-- doug (010)
> Cheers,
> Ali
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Ali Hashemi <
> ali.hashemi+ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxx <ali.hashemi%2Bontolog@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Jim.
>>
>> 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 "semantic pattern."
>>
>> 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!
>>
>> Best,
>> Ali
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Jim Rhyne <
>> jrr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Chris,
>>> 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
>>> problems.
>>> 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?
>>> Thanks, Jim
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>>> Christopher
>>> Menzel
>>> Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 12:05 PM
>>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Semantic patterns and logic expression
>>>
>>> On Feb 21, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Jim Rhyne wrote:
>>> > I frequently have to define a semantic pattern, but find that it
>>> cannot
>>> be
>>> expressed in the current versions of DL, or OWL Full, or in FOL.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid I don't believe you. :-) Can you give an example of a
>>> semantic
>>> pattern you can't express in FOL? (You are of course correct about the
>>> limitations of OWL-DL, but those exist by design in order to preserve
>>> decidability.)
>>>
>>> Chris Menzel
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> (•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,
>>
>
>
>
> --
> (•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (011)
=============================================================
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org (012)
"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
============================================================= (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)
|