ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] RDF vs. EAR

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Zhuk, Yefim" <Yefim.Zhuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 10:57:25 -0500
Message-id: <DEF4602BC4132240B68479642E1DD27F9A9D957CAD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
John,    (01)

> IKL, and it included one additional feature beyond Common Logic: the ability 
>to use metalanguage to make assertions about arbitrary propositions    (02)

Thank you for the links to your slides. Each time I learn more from them. 
Thanks for the references to IKL, which has visible similarities to CycL.
I took a look at the spec (http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/IKL/SPEC/SPEC.html ) 
and the Guide (http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/IKL/GUIDE/GUIDE.html )
There are impressive comparisons between IKL and OWL (not in favor of OWL).    (03)

But do we have any life on this nice territory?     (04)

a) Rich language filled with rules and relationships, which already has 
commonsense background descriptions for any application? 
b) Inference engine to check integrity and run the rules? 
c) Search facilities driven by the rules?
d) Language expansion and management tools?     (05)

Each item above, especially the first one, is a product of long and expensive 
work.
As time passes by, semantic technologies accelerate the pace and multiple 
companies (and different standard committees) re-create a,b,c,d on a much 
smaller scale.
One of the reasons besides political/powers is Cyc itself. The company is very 
slow in adapting to new semantic landscape.
I wish we'd have the "Google Translate" option to bring all we need from Cyc 
world to our local application dialects, easily add our specifics and scale it 
up or down (for performance).    (06)

If a,b,c,d is in place for IKL and open for public, this might be a great wagon 
to jump on.    (07)

How IKL is doing today?    (08)

Thank you,    (09)

Yefim (Jeff)    (010)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 9:17 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] RDF vs. EAR    (011)

On 12/6/2011 8:18 PM, Zhuk, Yefim wrote:
> I remember that in the initial message you said (I think that Guha
> said it too) that CycL was too complicated.    (012)

The point was "too complicated for the average programmer or webmaster."
If you're processing natural languages, you have to get into a very
large number of issues -- linguistic, logical, philosophical, and
computational.  That requires a lot of sophistication.    (013)

> Several years ago I also tried to figure out what is the best way to
> deal with NL.  At that time I thought about CycL as the best choice.
> (See http://javaschool.com/EA/5/KnowledgeTechnologies.pdf )
>
> I still keep this idea because this is the only language, which naturally
> creates rules while describing the subject.  Is it right that this is the
> only language, which has all necessary environment to speak and operate?    (014)

To support the full logical complexity of what can be expressed in NLs,
you do indeed require a very expressive version of logic.  That means
it must be even more expressive than Common Logic.    (015)

A few years ago, there was a two-year project to define an expressive
logic that would be upward compatible with Common Logic and sufficiently
rich to express a wide variety of knowledge representation languages.    (016)

Among the participants in that project were representatives from Cyc.
It also included several other people who subscribe to Ontolog Forum,
including Pat Hayes, Chris Menzel, Michael Gruninger, and me.    (017)

The language that we specified was called IKL, and it included one
additional feature beyond Common Logic: the ability to use metalanguage
to make assertions about arbitrary propositions.    (018)

In the following slides, I present an intro to Common Logic, and at the
end (slides 29 to 36) I discuss IKL.  I also include pointers to some
documents about IKL:    (019)

    http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/clintro.pdf    (020)

I also put together the following sequence of 140 slides (divided into
7 sections) on the topic "The goal of language understanding":    (021)

    http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/goal.pdf    (022)

John    (023)

_________________________________________________________________
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    (024)


This E-Mail has been scanned for viruses.    (025)

_________________________________________________________________
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    (026)

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