[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] RDF and XML

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 01:48:42 -0400
Message-id: <51C53ABA.7020306@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Pat C, Michel, and Chris,    (01)

Pat Hayes and Guha defined the LBase for RDF and OWL as a subset
of the CL model theory.  That means that all the Semantic Web
logics can be represented as various subsets of Common Logic.    (02)

> I would like to find a program that actually *translates* OWL into CL.
> Does anyone know of such a program?    (03)

I don't know of any program that does the translation, but Pat Hayes
spelled out the details.  The rest, as they say, is ASMOP --
A Simple Matter Of Programming.    (04)

    Translating Semantic Web languages into Common Logic    (05)

> Is there no path by which CL can be brought into the fold
> of Semantic Web technologies?    (06)

Recommendation:  All the SW languages can be treated as dialects
of Common Logic.  That means that CL is the universal medium that
can relate all of them to one another and to many other versions
of logic.  In particular, SHOE and F-logic, which I mentioned in
my previous note, could be specified as CL dialects.  CL could
be used to relate them to OWL, if needed for some application.    (07)

> Is there a document that can describe the advantages, disadvantages of 
>rdf/owl/cl?    (08)

There are many people who have discussed these issues, and it would be
possible to use Pat H's web page as a basis for specifying the details.
The basic advantage would be a common model-theoretic semantics that
would play the role of SWeLL in Tim B-L's original proposal.    (09)

> Who would champion it through the W3C process?    (010)

We'd have to find somebody connected with the W3C who understands
the issues and would be willing to talk to a lot of people.    (011)

C Mungal
> Advantages/disadvantages: CL is more expressive than RDF or OWL.
> RDF and OWL currently have more libraries, tools, support, mindshare,
> persistent stores, etc than CL. What's more important for your application?    (012)

You can have both.  When you adopt the more expressive CL as the
foundation, all the tools for the subset languages become CL tools.    (013)

The Cyc Project, for example, has a very expressive CycL logic, but
it uses a large variety of different reasoning methods for different
kinds of problems.  The users view CycL as a single, unified language.
But for any particular problem, the system automatically selects one
reasoning method or another as the one that is most suitable for
that problem.    (014)

I discuss some of these issues in the following article:    (015)

    Fads and Fallacies About Logic    (016)

John    (017)

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    (018)

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