I am trying to understand the similarities and differences between API4KB and
Apache Stanbol. If I select the mechanisms of one project will the difficulties
of using the other framework be insurmountable? It could be left to system
integrator to get the services from both projects interacting. Or efforts could
be made earlier in the life-cycle to assure ease of integration and
compatibility. Admittedly services allow for loose coupling and glue code can
create a functioning system. (01)
Thanx for any insights. (02)
On Jun 28, 2013, at 3:26 PM, Elisa Kendall <ekendall@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (03)
> John,
>
> One of the primary goals of the APIs is to provide standard interfaces
> for constructing hybrid reasoning systems, so that
> classification-oriented reasoners can be incorporated in a standard way
> with enterprise quality rule engines, predictive analytics, data mining
> and other such capabilities to solve real world problems. I'm also
> interested in improving the interoperability of ontology development
> using RDFS, OWL, and CL with other modeling tools, for example to
> facilitate reasoning about systems engineering and business process models.
>
> The parsers/APIs are not up to snuff sufficiently to support doing this
> without a great deal of effort, including custom development that may
> not work if the APIs themselves change (I can say this as having been a
> victim of the results more than once). There are a number of APIs out
> there, notably the OWL API, that folks use for development, but it isn't
> a standard at this point, and could benefit from commercialization.
> Consistent integration of the OWL API and even RDF-based APIs such as
> Jena can be challenging.
>
> For the kinds of systems I'm concerned about, including those that would
> use extensions of the emerging Financial Industry Business Ontology
> (FIBO) for use in banking applications, the ontology(ies) themselves
> would be reused across systems, with appropriate mappings from
> qualitative to quantitative measures/metrics. So -- we're not talking
> about multiple ontologies in various languages with differing semantics
> at all in this case, but ways of integrating the same ontology in
> different engines. Early demonstrations of the potential have been very
> well received by the institutions and regulators alike. But -- the
> access methods for the reasoners are insufficient for our needs, which
> include integration with service busses, use in REST architectures, and
> so on. Matthew Horridge has said that he would be interested in working
> with us to use the API4KBs wrappers together with the OWL API to show
> how this could be done in practice, which is one of our critical test
> cases. Other test cases include the Reaction RuleML architecture
> (Adrian Paschke, Harold Boley, Davide Sottara, and others), which
> supports very interesting integration of rule systems and other kinds of
> analyses already, but has not been integrated with description logics
> reasoners to date. Yet another group participating in the work includes
> Jeff Pan and his team working on OWL reasoners that simulate some of the
> aspects of OWL that can raise performance issues through rewriting,
> etc. This would give us at least two participants with varied OWL
> reasoning capabilities and interfaces, and in addition to the RuleML
> folks, IBM and TIBCO are also on our voting list and participate from
> time to time in the meetings/development activities, with possible
> implementations in ILOG and TIBCO Business Events, among other
> commercial applications.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Elisa
>
> On 6/28/2013 9:41 AM, John F Sowa wrote:
>> Ed,
>>
>>> But you can't blow hot and cold with the same mouth here.
>> I'm blowing ambivalence.
>>
>> The initial impression I got from Sottara's 2012 slides was that he
>> was trying to do something very ambitious that was premature for
>> standardization. But you and Elisa convinced me that he is doing
>> something much simpler -- and certainly doable.
>>
>> My only objection is we already have a solution: Common Logic is
>> a superset of all the logics on their list. Any or all of the three
>> dialects in the 2007 ISO standard or the next revision -- CLIF, CGIF,
>> or XCL -- could be used for interchange among the systems on their list.
>>
>> So what's the point?
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|