Thanks, John. I really appreciate info. like this.
My mkr2ikl translator is coming along nicely.
I should be able to translate simple mKR like
the Objectivist Axioms by the end of today.
Dick McCullough
Context Knowledge Systems
mKE and the mKR language
mKR/mKE tutorial> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 11:36:44 -0400
> From: sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To: phayes@xxxxxxx; rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; rhmccullough@xxxxxxxxx; ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: IKL, NL semantics, and many-sorted logic
>
> Pat and Dick,
>
> RHM
> >> Is there any new IKL documentation in the last 5 years?
>
> PJH
> > No, the project was never developed once the funding had finished.
>
> The IKRIS project from 2005 to 2006 included an impressive group of AI
> experts. Unfortunately, the ideas and results were never published,
> and the organizers at MITRE deleted the reports from their web site.
>
> For IKL spec's: http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/IKL/SPEC/SPEC.htm
>
> For Users' Guide: http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/IKL/GUIDE/GUIDE.htm
>
> I posted what I had saved and what I found on the WWW on my web site:
> http://www.jfsowa.com/ikl/ . In particular, I recommend the report
> of the Evaluation Working Group, which demonstrated the use of IKL
> as an interchange format among three highly expressive logics:
>
> * Common Logic (CL) used in KANI
> * Multi-Sorted Logic (MSL) used in Slate
> * CycL used in the Cyc knowledge base and the Noöscape system
>
> Doug Lenat said that neither KIF nor CLIF could represent all the
> features of CycL, but CL with the IKL extensions could.
>
> More recently, I wrote a brief summary of the use of the IKL
> features to support metalanguage and natural language semantics.
> See pp. 17 to 23 of http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/eg2cg.pdf
>
> For issues about many-sorted logic (MSL), see the references and
> quotations in my "Notes on MSL": http://www.jfsowa.com/logic/sorts.pdf
>
> That article cites several articles and slides by Hassan Aït-Kaci.
> His LOGIN system (1986) combines a hierarchy of sorts on top of
> Prolog. That combination provides a *single language* that is
> faster than OWL for reasoning about taxonomies and one of the
> fastest versions of Prolog for rule-based reasoning.
>
> His more recent (2013) CEDAR system can import OWL ontologies and
> run circles around OWL in performance. Following is a summary:
>
> Page 2 of sorts.pdf:
> > Amir and Aït-Kaci (2013) compared the CEDAR system, which uses
> > an order-sorted logic (OSL) for classifying and querying very large
> > taxonomies, to six OWL-based reasoners: Fact++, HermiT, Pellet,
> > TrOWL, RacerPro, and SnoRocket. They compared them on four taxonomies
> > that ranged in size from 111,559 sorts or classes (Wikipedia) to
> > 903,617 sorts (NCBI). For classification, CEDAR was among the three
> > fastest for all the taxonomies; on the Wikipedia taxonomy, it was
> > five times faster than the second best (Fact++). For querying,
> > CEDAR beat all the others by several orders of magnitude. The query
> > time is the most important, since a classified CEDAR taxonomy can be
> > saved and reused. CEDAR also detects cycles in the taxonomy, which
> > are a serious source of inconsistencies. For related issues, see
> > the three slide presentations by Aït-Kaci (2013).
>
> Note that CEDAR achieves that performance with a *more expressive*
> language than OWL -- and it outperforms OWL by importing very large
> OWL ontologies and running the same queries.
>
> Those people who say that you need to restrict expressive power in order
> to achieve performance are partly right -- in the sense that different
> *algorithms* are designed for different subsets of logic.
>
> But that does not -- most definitely *not* -- mean that the user should
> use a restricted language to get that performance. CEDAR and many other
> systems have multiple algorithms under the cover, and they use them in
> combination on different aspects of any particular problem.
>
> For further discussion of these issues, see
> http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/fflogic.pdf
> Fads and fallacies about logic
>
> Fundamental point: If anybody says that it's necessary to restrict a
> logic to improve performance, they are confusing two distinct issues:
> the language the user sees and the algorithms that support it.
>
> Please enlighten such people by sending them a copy of this note.
>
> John