ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Breaking News: Googlesupports GoodRelations

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Yuriy Milov" <qdone@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 18:41:55 -0500
Message-id: <738C5906FAE442FF9CB47223DD513B16@zz>

Alex,
 
1. Rareness of phenomenon does not deny the fact of existence, and the only one mistake makes all the proving wrong.
 
2. I did not know what is FOL but Wiki "knows" - now I know too :)
 
3. Knowledge does not supposed to be only theoretical. Neverthless, a logic-checkers (semantic analog of the spellcheckers) could work for proper formatted "theories" (texts). A sort of the scientific CNL can help to avoid ambiguity of scientific terms and phrases in thesis by adding "red marks" to unrecognized logical movements. Being adopted by academical institutions and scientisiv funds such "semantic" norm (established standards for logical checkers) could help the semantic software to spread in the real life. Why not?
Yuri
PS See you in kurilka, Alex :)
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Breaking News: Googlesupports GoodRelations

Yuriy,

"both in one" is a very rare case.
Knowledge keeper does not know XML, RDF, Sparql, OWL and other funny things. And she is right.
But she does not know FOL. It's a pity;-)

Programmer usually knows only these funny things.
But he does not know FOL as well. It's a shame;-)

Anyway everybody has some knowledge to share.
And how many knowledge programmers do we have right now?

Before, we had knowledge guru with their enigmatic Knowledge Base Management Systems.
And SW has at least one merit: now any programmer can write ontology.
Well, it's too much:-)

With CNL any plodding knowledge keeper can;-)
Is any narrative text is an ontology, at least a factology (aka A-box)?

With Simple English we have more interesting situation:
many type of text may be simplified grammatically without to loose or corrupt a knowledge. And still being readable.
A problem is that between CNL-statement and a formula from some logical theory there is a gap:
we should know exactly which theory she keeps in mind (so named context),
i.e. transformation is not universal. That rules of "translation" are theory specific.

For many areas we still do not have theory itself.
Theory as a system of definitions at least.

Alex

PS а за пределами форума можно пообщаться и на русском. буду рад:-)

2010/11/8 Yuriy Milov <qdone@xxxxxxxxxx>
Alex ,
 
I like your point but how can you distinquish "programmers" and "end users" epecially if they are "both in one" )
 
BTW follow your post I have found (from the "Simple English" http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_English_Wikipedia ) that "... people use the Simple English Wikipedia because the simple language helps them understand difficult ideas..."
 
If it was true we would have Simple Math and Simple OWL for academics and presidents )
 
Regards
Yuri
P.S. Many of us use English as a second language (for ex. my native is Russin), so I am sorry if it looks like a joke ;)
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Breaking News: Googlesupports GoodRelations

Surely there is a distinction to be made between what is modeled and what it is modeled in. Changing the syntax or the presentation is not the same as changing the content of the model, and in the end a model is either a model of something in the problem domain or a model of a (usually proposed) solution.

Mike

On 08/11/2010 08:14, Alex Shkotin wrote:
John,

as XML, RDF are data models and ways for information coding, it is not for users but for programmers.
XML is accepted by programmers for their needs.
Internal structure of SW is a programmers deal.

We have 5(!) syntaxes for OWL 2. I think none of them for end user.
These are for a new kind of programmers: knowledge coders;-)

And as usual for end user we need forms to fulfill, manage and query knowledge.

It seems one additional "user interface" we may get now is a very simple CNL.
We get it while verbalizing RDB data, for ex. And for me it is better than "metadata", as end user can write CNL.

We have know spellcheckers working background when we type.
It would be crucial step forward for the web to have a background CNL checker the user accept.
Not everybody but who'd like to type knowledge;-)

Even for knowledge interchange it may be better to have CNL.
Do we need a standard for CNL?

Alex

2010/11/7 John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Kingsley,

> Even if Martin only published GoodRelations in RDF/XML format,
> the conceptual schema isn't inextricably to RDF formats.

Yes.  That's the point I was trying to emphasize.

Nobody develops alternatives to good notations.  The fact that there
are so many variations is a sign that the edict to make the XML
serialization the normative version was a disaster.

People constantly say "Oh, you don't have to use it if you don't
like it."   But making the XML serialization the normative version
is a terrible example of a premature optimization in favor of the
semantically least important and most trivial aspect.

The first step toward a rational reconstruction of the Semantic Web
is to demote the XML serialization of the languages to a legacy
status.  Then sponsor a design competition for better alternatives.

_________________________________________________________________ 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


-- 
Mike Bennett
Director
Hypercube Ltd. 
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
www.hypercube.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068




_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)

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