|To:||"[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, bparsia@xxxxxxxxxxxx|
|From:||Ali SH <asaegyn+out@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:28:06 -0400|
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It's nice and shiny, though slightly lonely lain singularly by my feet! Sorry about not anticipating this disconnect in terminology? But like you said, "who cares" what people mean when they use terms so long as someone knows their computational properties, right?
Except of course, we did that exactly for PSL and the Region Connection Calculus (RCC) mereotopology. And of course, given an appropriately mature repository, you could combine various mid-level modules that themselves are reducible... It's a pretty interesting engineering problem, but there's still a ways to go. Once the repository reaches a critical mass of ontology, then things get exciting.
If you say so... I defer to Oliver K here.
Not really sure how to respond to this. There are two cases illustrated above. One, where an ontology comprises of a union of multiple modules with at least one module requiring expressivity. A system trying to reason over a query that uses language from all the modules would require that full expressivity (even if it ends up not really exploiting it). Being able to do such decomposition further allows one to optimize for those queries not requiring the full breadth of the ontology.
Two you have some ontology written in FOL (i.e. PSL). You show that models of PSL-core is reducible to simpler structures. This suggests one way to optimize implementation of such system that generate PSL compliant models. Something about not trying to optimize prematurely.
But you're right, there are two parallel issues here. One is the actual reasoning involved, and the other re syntactic limitations imposed by a particular representation language. As John Sowa likes to point out, it is perfectly possible to write programs that never halt in any interesting programming language. However, people don't syntactically restrict programming languages in order to ensure the worst case cannot possibly be encountered. In this vein, the same applies to FOL. Except of course, ontology engineering is still in relative infancy compared to traditional programming, and it's easy to write "infinite loops."
But the issue is one of not getting caught up in syntactic limitations, and focusing on capturing the intuition clearly and faithfully. Or rather, emphasizing/focusing on the actual domain and the content of ontologies rather than trying to prematurely optimize based on syntax. (sorry, couldn't resist)
[AH] Right, so the problem of tractability is part of the domain moreso than an inherent part of a representation language.
[BP] Well, this calls into doubt your earlier claim to knowledge. This does not REMOTELY follow, at least on any reasonable interpretation I can find.
Apologies, poor phrasing. It was a rather obtuse way of repeating (what others have said multiply), that it doesn't matter what language you use, but that complexity, intractability, exponential time, etc are very much due to the nature of certain problems. Syntactic limitations don't change the problem domain, they just don't let you express / represent it.
Lol, seriously? I was just poking fun. I do appreciate your contributions, you've stimulated some thought and I appreciated your pointers to recent research in DL reasoning.
Anyway, have fun!
Good thing that's not what we're claiming! :D
_________________________________________________________________ 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)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies vs Theories / Axioms vs Rules, Bijan Parsia|
|Next by Date:||[ontolog-forum] **DEADLINE 24 OCTOBER***: ICDE Workshop on Data-Driven Decision Guidance and Support Systems, Kathryn B Laskey|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies vs Theories / Axioms vs Rules, Bijan Parsia|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies vs Theories / Axioms vs Rules, Jim Rhyne|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|