ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

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

 To: "[ontolog-forum]" "John F. Sowa" Sun, 28 Mar 2010 21:32:35 -0500 <4BB01143.1090307@xxxxxxxxxxx>
 ```Kevin and Pavithra,    (01) KDK> I think we have a different view of what is "simpler".    (02) Yes, indeed!    (03) KDK> 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.    (04) No! If you start with FOL, you have 120 years worth of very well documented definitions. In fact, the Mathematica system has defined practically every function and mathematical system that is used in any branch of science, engineering, statistics, and other fields. And most of those definitions are available for free download.    (05) If you use the CLIF dialect, you do arithmetic by writing (+ x y), (* x y), and (/ x y). If you are using a dialect with infix notation, you can write x+y, x*y, and x/y.    (06) There are two styles of writing logical expressions: functional style, as in many languages such as ML, Haskell, etc.; or relational style, as in Prolog, Datalog, and other logic programming languages.    (07) Learn Mathematica. Learn Prolog. Learn functional programming. All those techniques have been defined, implemented, and used for over 30 years. And anything you can do with those languages is acceptable in FOL.    (08) KDK> As far as I can see, the problem is not the formalisms, it's > the content.    (09) Yes, indeed! That's why there is no need to define new kinds of languages. The hard work has been done, and you can focus on the content.    (010) PK> ... find using logic and axioms explicitly too linear. > Too many statements, to say one thing. We were taught to use > theory in an implicit manner to prove the design..    (011) Proving program correctness is hard to do, and that's not what I've been recommending.    (012) I suggest that you learn functional programming, logic programming, and Mathematica. All three of those styles are applicable to logic, and each of them has certain advantages over the others for certain kinds of applications. For any algorithm you can program in Java, one of those three styles will enable you to write the same thing in fewer lines of code and sometimes a tiny fraction of the number of lines of code.    (013) PK> Is it always necessary to give the detail explanation in linear > way? To me, axioms and logic feels that way.    (014) Try using Prolog and Mathematica. It will be a revelation.    (015) John    (016) _________________________________________________________________ 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    (017) ```
 Current Thread Re: [ontolog-forum] Re Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, (continued) Re: [ontolog-forum] Re Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, doug foxvog [ontolog-forum] Fun with Names, strings, and other identifiers, Patrick Cassidy Re: [ontolog-forum] Fun with Names, strings, and other identifiers, doug foxvog Re: [ontolog-forum] Fun with Names, strings, and other identifiers, Mike Bennett Re: [ontolog-forum] Fun with Names, strings, and other identifiers, Alex Shkotin Re: [ontolog-forum] Fun with Names, strings, and other identifiers, Pavithra Re: [ontolog-forum] Fun with Names, strings, and other identifiers, Ryan Kohl Re: [ontolog-forum] Re Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, Gary H. Merrill Re: [ontolog-forum] Re Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, doug foxvog [ontolog-forum] Off-topic question...Parsing sentences, John Bottoms Re: [ontolog-forum] Re Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, John F. Sowa <= Re: [ontolog-forum] Re Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, Kevin D Keck Re: [ontolog-forum] Re Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Re Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, Christopher Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Re Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Re Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, Christopher Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Re Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, Rich Cooper Re: [ontolog-forum] Re Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, Christopher Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Re Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, Cameron Ross Re: [ontolog-forum] Re Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, Rich Cooper Re: [ontolog-forum] Re Foundation ontology, CYC, and Mapping, Christopher Menzel