[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Quote for the day -- KR and KM

To: edbark@xxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 10:32:07 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <db8224b6f04721756e491e266977067b.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Ed,    (01)

I'm traveling now, and I don't have time to respond
detail -- but I'd like to make one observation.    (02)

> I find it
much easier to agree that it is possible to
> construct a formal
semantics for a conceptual schema
> language, and not to be deeply
concerned about its
> relationship to a first-order semantics.    (03)

Consider OWL as an example:    (04)

 1. OWL (and other DLs) are
subsets of FOL and supersets
    of Aristotle's syllogisms.    (05)

 2. The Aristotelian subset has proved to be useful for
specifying hierarchies for two and a half millennia,
    and it's
still the most widely used subset of all DLs
    (The BFO ontology,
for example, does not use any
    feature of OWL beyond the
Aristotelian subset.)    (06)

 3. There is no conflict of any kind
between any language
    and its supersets and subsets.    (07)

 4. The reason why some subsets are *sometimes* easier to
than the supersets is that they focus the user's attention
particular details and support useful guidelines and
methodologies.    (08)

 5. Those guidelines and methodologies have a
strong similarity
    to the "design patterns" by the
"Gang of Four".  I would
    call them *Knowledge Design
Patterns* (KDP).
 6. Any KDP used with a subset can *always*
be used in exactly
    the same way with any superset.  The superset
    just supports more of them, and it can use *all* of
    together in an integrated fashion.    (09)

 7. KDP's (or
their equivalent) can enable a knowledge engineer
    to use a large
language with the same ease of use as a small
    language.  But a
larger language provides *greater* ease of
    use, because it
enables the option of mixing, matching, and
    integrating *all*
design patterns within a common framework.    (010)

In fact, one reason
why I like UML diagrams is that each diagram
supports a small number
(sometimes just one) KDP.  But all the
UML diagrams taken together
support a wide range KDPs for FOL.
When using UML, the users never
need to worry about the underlying
FOL, but it is always there if
they need it.  (OCL isn't an ideal
escape to full FOL, and I'd
recommend controlled NLs.)    (011)

John    (012)

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    (013)

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