Hallo John, (01)
I agree that there should be something like "OWL-FOL" for those who want
more expressiveness. (02)
But I don't see the semantic web as a possible way to realize the vision of
CYC - at least not in the medium term. The immediate payoff of the semantic web
will be from systems with semantics coded into the sourcecode - not from
general purpose reasoning systems with semantics coded in the data. (03)
Michael Brunnbauer (05)
On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 10:16:05AM -0500, John F. Sowa wrote:
> When Tim B-L announced his goals for the Semantic Web in the
> late 1990s, I was enthusiastic about them. I was somewhat less
> enthusiastic about the original layer cake because it put a
> specific syntax (XML) and a specific representation (triples)
> at the foundation.
> But at least the original layer cake contained a box labeled
> "logic" in the middle. That was promising, although I would
> have put logic in the foundation. Over time, however, several
> proposed versions of logic, such as SWRL and RuleML, were
> exiled from the layer cake because they were "undecidable".
> Now, the only things left are RDFS, SPARQL, OWL, and RIF.
> But the only implementation of RIF is the highly restricted
> (and mostly unusable) subset that conforms to OWL semantics.
> The tiny box labeled "unifying logic" is a fraction of the
> original size -- and it looks like the grin of the Cheshire
> cat as rest of it vanishes.
> The new layer cake destroys any hopes I had about using the SW
> as a basis for integration. The decidable fragment of OWL is
> so restricted that anything beyond a toy example requires some
> other language as a supplement -- usually a typical procedural,
> Turing-complete language.
> We need a bridge between those languages and the semantic system.
> UML and related methodologies show that such bridges can be built,
> and they have proved to be highly useful for mainstream IT. But
> you can't use a decidable language to define or specify what is
> done with an undecidable language. OWL models are restricted to
> trees. You can't use it to define a triangle, a benzene ring,
> or just a wheel.
> In summary, I believe that anything that anybody has found to be useful
> for some application is indeed useful. That includes all of the SW
> technologies in the layer cake. But it also includes a huge number
> of other technologies that must be supported by *Semantic Systems* .
> 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
++ Michael Brunnbauer
++ netEstate GmbH
++ Geisenhausener Straße 11a
++ 81379 München
++ Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
++ Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89
++ E-Mail brunni@xxxxxxxxxxxx
++ Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
++ USt-IdNr. DE221033342
++ Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
++ Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel (07)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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 (08)