On 12/11/2012 11:33 AM, Alex Shkotin wrote:
> I should definitely keep in mind that some people saying ontology are
> thinking about Tbox. (01)
In fact, the term T-box was first used to describe KRYPTON, which
combined KL-One for the T-Box with an FOL theorem prover for the A-box. (02)
OWL is a direct descendant of KL-One. I have no quarrel with using
DLs to define the T-box. But you can't develop applications with
just a T-Box. (03)
In practice, most applications of OWL use only the Aristotelian
subset: They don't specify anything beyond what could be said
in the much more readable notation of Aristotle's syllogisms. (04)
Then they use a completely unconstrained programming language
for the application. The decidability people insist on putting a
double lock on the T-box, but they leave the back door wide open. (05)
Schema.org is the logical *upgrade* from OWL. It provides a very
simple logic for the type hierarchy and allows users to combine it
with anything they find useful for their applications: (06)
(a) A more expressive version of logic. (07)
(b) A traditional programming language. (08)
(c) Any kind of database they find useful. (09)
(d) Any combination of (a), (b), and (c). (010)
This is an important step toward supporting Tim B-L's goals of
diversity, heterogeneity, and interoperability. For those who like
decidability, the simple type hierarchy is trivially decidable.
It's most important contribution is to remove the constraint of
tree-structured models. That allows interoperability with
everything -- including legacy systems. (011)
John (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|