Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies vs Theories / Axioms vs Rules

[Ali SH <asaegyn+out@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Bijan,

> [AH] I would hope that with the current work under way by the Bremen group (HeTS) and the Toronto group (COLORE), a CL ontology could be factored into more tractable fragments.

[BP] If so, then it probably doesn't need the extra expressivity. In expressive logics, size is less important than complexity. Euclid's Theorems don't make for a *large* KB, but good luck writing a reasoner that can return the rest of the Elements :)

Ummmm, not quite.

There are many applications where you might have captured the domain in an expressive ontology, and have ensured consistency (perhaps off-line) and are using that ontology to drive the development of software or other services. So for example, for real-time interactions of a subset of that ontology, you deploy fragments of it.  Try googling "Ontology Driven Software Engineering".

[AH] Of course, not to mention a number of CL reasoners currently under development

 

[BP] Such as? First order theorem proving is pretty hard and existing ones are pretty good. None that I know of are targeting CL per se or ontologies, really. 

There have been mentions of at least 3 efforts on the Common Logic mailing list. Off the top of my head, I believe there is a group working with Fabian Neuhaus, another with Tara Athan, and another with Randall Schulz.

[AH] but I certainly was confused as to what people meant by Rule, and clarifications such as this thread can help avoid pointless future confusion when talking to different groups of people :D. Further, in the context of the OOR and using the OMV to tag various registered ontologies and create web-services and workflows around what is in the OOR, these distinctions could come to bear. 

 

[BP] I'd be surprised. But I don't know what OOR and OMV are.

OOR is the Open Ontology Repository, the list through which this initial discussion was sparked and we were previously emailing. OMV is the Ontology Metadata Vocabulary, as per: http://omv2.sourceforge.net/ 

Further, if OWL+SWRL or OWL+RIF ontologies will becoming more prevalent, then at the very least, these rule formalisms would need to be incorporated into the Hets logic graph.

[AH] and what is the nature of their relationship (using OMV or an extension) to the OWL ontologies? What is the nature of a subset of some CL ontology that maps to some OWL+SWRL combo?

 

[BP]I don't really understand the question(s). Presumably the nature will be, oh, equivalence? What "nature"? Different equivalent formulations can have distinct computational issues, of course, but..."nature"?

Admittedly a shoddy phrase, but it is certainly more than just equivalence. For example, see section 2 in: http://stl.mie.utoronto.ca/publications/colore-fois.pdf

Best,

Ali

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)