On Mar 28, 2010, at 11:37 AM, Kevin D Keck wrote: (01)
> ----- 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.
> 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)
The difference is that a text is simply , well, some text; a module is
some text with a built-in assumption that it is all about a restricted
(sub)universe. This means that all the quantifiers in the module text
are understood to be restricted to that sub-universe, and there is a
provision (the 'excludes' part) for saying that some names refer to
things outside that sub-universe. (03)
As to representing context logic, you shouldn't use either of these.
You should introduce contexts as first-class entities and treat 'true
in a context' as a relationship between the context and a
*proposition*, which in CL is a zero-ary relation, and state your
truth conditions as sentences equivalent to those propositions. For
(ist C (and (P a)(Q b))) (05)
would map to (06)
(ist C (p))
(iff (p)(and (P a)(Q b))) (07)
You will need a bit more syntax to handle quantifying in, but if you
think of that (p) as existentially quantified, you won't go far wrong. (08)
>> 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...
> 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.
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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.
> 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.
> 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
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (010)
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 (011)