[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Re Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Kevin D Keck <KDKeck@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:37:25 -0700
Message-id: <f14c6d531ebb.4baf3f75@xxxxxxx>
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, March 28, 2010 8:39 am
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Re  Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> KDK> If you're using contexts (quads in OWL/RDF), then sets of
> > observations (graphs) may also be considered as things, with
> > attributed provenance.
> That brings in even more terminology.  If I use CL as the lingua
> franca, I would map OWL expressions to CL expressions and talk
> about them using CL terminology.    (01)

Unfortunately one area where CL is unhappily confused is precisely here: what 
is the difference between a "module" and a "text"?  Which one should I use to 
represent context logic?    (02)

> KDK> ... but I think that such a powerful framework is not really
> > needed for this particular use case.
> That's what everybody says when they start a new project.  They
> say that they want something simple, but when the ISO standard
> is written, it's as fat as the Manhattan telephone book.
> Eventually, they discover that it also happens to be incompatible
> with every other special standard.  As a result, the financial
> department of a company can't relate their data to the departments
> for engineering, manufacturing, sales...    (03)

How would specifying them all in FOL reduce this problem?  As far as I can see, 
the problem is not the formalisms, it's the content.    (04)

> KDK> Since the time period of that work, the financial sector has
> > been steadily adopting the XBRL standard for financial reporting,
> > which indeed provides a mechanism for a definition of every 
> reported > item to be specified through a URI.
> Do you remember R. V. Guha?  He was the associate director of Cyc,
> which he left in the early 1990s.  (I don't know his exact reasons,
> so I won't speculate why.)
> But one thing he said was that the full power of Cyc was too great,
> and he wanted to define something very simple that would be adequate
> for most purposes.  He thought that triples were the simplest useful
> notation, and he teamed up with Tim Bray to represent triples in XML.
> That was the origin of RDF.
> But as time went on, those triples kept getting more complex because
> XML had lots of "features" that people thought were "convenient" for
> some purpose or other.  Unfortunately, they "took advantage" of those
> features and RDF(S) became more and more complex.  Then OWL was built
> on top of RDF, and it became more complex and morphed into multiple
> versions.
> If you look at the Common Logic standard, it's both *more powerful*
> and *much simpler* than what RDF and OWL became.  See Section 6 of the
> ISO 24707 standard, which takes just 12 pages (pp. 8 to 19) for the
> abstract syntax and semantics.  The full standard takes 80 pages,
> but that includes 11 more pages of explanation, 50 pages to define
> three different concrete dialects, and 7 pages of bibliography.    (05)

I think we have a different view of what is "simpler".  If you start with only 
FOL, then you need to define arithmetic before you can move on to defining what 
is a valid financial report.  This may be easy enough to do, but unless you 
adopt a standard way of doing so the common foundation in FOL won't have gained 
you anything.    (06)

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    (07)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>