Thank you, John. (01)
I am passing this over to SteveRay, who single-handedly organized this
event, and will be chairing the session tomorrow, to pose your
questions to Guha. In fact, it would be wonderful if Steve would
invite him to join us here on the mailing list, so Guha can elaborate
on the response in writing. (02)
... Steve, will you please. (03)
Thanks & regards. =ppy
-- (04)
On 11/30/11, sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> Peter,
> I'm traveling this week, and I'll be in meetings on
> Thursday. So I won't be able to call in for Guha's talk.
> But I have
> two questions that I hope somebody would ask.
> Guha had been the
> associate director at Cyc, and he felt that CycL was too complicated for
> most people. I certainly agree with that.
> But his solution was to
> develop a very simple subset of logic, which people could learn to use.
> Then he hoped that they would gradually be able to migrate to a richer
> subset of logic as time went on.
> That simple subset was triples,
> which in LISP (the base language of Cyc) would indeed be simple: (A B
> C). Unfortunately, RDF became the most outlandishly complicated way of
> saying (A B C).
> So far, the only successful extension beyond RDF is
> RDFS. People have been pushing OWL for years, but with limited success.
> If you look at the OWL ontologies published on the WWW, 95% of them do not
> use any features that go beyond Aristotle's syllogisms.
> Suppose the
> W3C had adopted the following logic in 1998 and expressed it in LISP
> notation:
> 1. Triples and n-tuples expressed as (R A B) or (R A B C
> D...).
> 2. Aristotle's syllogisms (expressed in controlled English)
> for expressing and reasoning about the ontology.
> 3. If-then rules
> for a Horn-clause logic similar to Datalog for reasoning about the triples
> and n-tuples. It could serve as query language with deductive
> capabilities that are a superset of SQL or SPARQL.
> 4. Bindings to
> SQL for storing and retrieving n-tuples.
> This logic and its
> expression in a LISP-like notation could be presented in a very readable
> 10-page manual. It would be much easier to teach, learn, and use than
> the current SemWeb offerings. It could be used in conjunction with
> relational DBs, object-oriented DBs, or RDFa tags in web pages. And it
> could support a natural growth path to more sophisticated logics, such as
> CycL and others.
> Question #1: Why didn't Guha specify that in
> 1998?
> Question #2: Why doesn't he do that today?
> John
> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|