[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Schema.org is not OWL-based (was Re: Toward Human-Le

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:35:48 -0400
Message-id: <535EBBA4.1070103@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 4/28/14 2:11 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
> Kingsley,
> These are tactical issues, not strategic.
> KI
>> I use OWL examples because OWL exists and is implemented across
>> many  tools, including the ones I use.
> I *always* support pragmatic engineering choices to solve whatever
> problems the customers may have.  But I also emphasize the need
> to work toward better long-term methods for being pragmatic.    (01)

I believe in perpetual improvement of everything.    (02)

> KI
>> The world isn't comprised solely of English speakers. In addition,
>> use of English and formal logic don't have to be mutually exclusive.
> Absolutely!  I always use the term 'CNL', not 'Controlled English'.
> And I also emphasize the need for a language-independent formalism
> as both the *logical foundation* and the *interchange format*.    (03)

I yes, that's how I've typically understood your position. That said, 
Schema.org isn't even 'Controlled English' .    (04)

> KI
>> but who is using Aristotle's notation (directly) right now in regards
>> to merging disparate data sources across the Web, Intranets, and Extranets?
> Three points:
>    1. Aristotle's four sentence patterns are an instantly intelligible
>       subset of every CNL.  They require ZERO training to explain them.
>    2. Each one has a direct translation to any formal notation:
>          A:  Every X is a Y.     =>  X is a subtype of Y.
>          I:  Some X is a Y.      =>  X and Y overlap.
>          E:  No X is a Y.        =>  X and Y are disjoint.
>          O:  Some X is not a Y.  =>  X is not a subtype of Y.
>    3. For an ontology, those sentence patterns specify the hierarchy.
>       When you add if-then rules, you get an order-sorted Horn-clause
>       logic.  It's *readable* in any CNL, and it can be translated
>       to very efficient and powerful reasoning systems.  For example,
>       http://www.hassan-ait-kaci.net/pdf/login-jlp-86.pdf    (05)

I understand what you are saying, but my point stands in regards to 
existing systems in use today that are making direct use of this in 
web-like fashion?    (06)

By web-like I always mean:    (07)

1. data de-silo-fication via entity denotation using HTTP URIs
2. entity relation semantics expressed using subject->predicate->object 
based syntax
3. structured data representation using a variety of notations.    (08)

1-3 are basically the essential core of the World Wide Web, even when 
the only machine discernible entity relation takes the form of "linksTo" 
which is exposed via the anchor tag in HTML (vehicle that delivers 
name->address indirection at a higher level to end-users).    (09)

The Web works, RDF works (when all the fluffy distractions are negated), 
so do RDFS and OWL. They just work.    (010)

> KI
>> There are already enough notations in existence today.
> I *totally* agree.  Nobody wants to bother learning a new language.
> IBM got burned with PL/I.  They learned that "Languages don't sell."
> SourceForge shows that you can't even give them away.
> Therefore, use any language that your customers already know.    (011)

Yes.    (012)

> They already know some NL.    (013)

Not necessarily, they don't make the distinction between English and 
'Controlled English' for instance.    (014)

>   Let them use a CNL they can read without
> a training course of any kind.  If they already know some kind of
> diagrams or conventions, adopt *their* notation, not yours.    (015)

Yes, I don't believe in "ripping and replacing" anything.    (016)

> Fundamental principle:  If you want people to be virtuous, make virtue
> the path of least resistance.    (017)

I totally agree.    (018)

> Don't force them to learn a new notation.    (019)

I agree, never force, its better to use understanding to guide folks 
from one place to another.
> The major blunder of the SW was to invent the world's worst notation.    (020)

I think that was a W3C blunder in regards to RDF/XML :-)    (021)

> John
>    (022)

--     (023)

Regards,    (024)

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen    (025)

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

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    (01)

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