OWL and CycL are not really comparable, because OWL is based on a fragment of
First Order Logic that is known to be decidable, for which provably correct
reasoning algorithms are known and for which effective implementations based on
said algorithms are available. OWL's expressive power could, of course, be
easily (indeed arbitrarily) extended if one were prepared to compromise on some
or all of these design constraints. For example, SWRL extends OWL with Horn
clauses (AKA rules), but the resulting language is undecidable, and so only
incomplete reasoners are available. In fact such reasoners are typically used
in a way that is actually incorrect, in that failure to find an entailment is
treated as a non-entailment, whereas it should be treated as "don't know". (01)
Regards,
Ian (02)
On 29 Jul 2010, at 20:15, Zhuk, Yefim wrote: (03)
> Ian,
>
> Thanks for another great event related to OWL2.
>
> What is your opinion on CycL and CycML (see http://cyc.com)?
>
> From my point of view, this language is more expressive than OWL and has
>naturally embedded rules features.
> I used this language to describe complex objects and rule-based business
>scenarios.
> I think, this comes much closer to mimicking real world than OWL can provide
>today.
>
> Do you see this one as gaining bigger acceptance and getting to the level of
>a standard?
>
> Or maybe there are some limitations that I don’t see?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Jeff
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|