[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Visual Notation for OWL Ontologies (VOWL)

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 21:13:04 -0400
Message-id: <CADE8KM6juRbZHwAhu90G-Q3rYaUF0+MM-A0tbwFp0Jr4URXCug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[For simplicity, assume no abnormal squid]

In Cyc you can say:

(implies  (isa ?S Squid) 
   (thereExistExactly 10 ?T 
   (and (isa ?T Tentacle) (anatomicalParts ?S ?T))))

In OWL you can write:
                     :anatomicalParts :Tentacle))

Could you show what this looks like graphical form?

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 6:53 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 5/12/2014 12:13 PM, Piotr Nowara wrote:
> I believe you will find this effort interesting, at the very least :-)

Yes.  I agree that it's interesting.  It shows something profound
about the OWL mentality -- and not in a favorable sense.

First, I recommend an intro to Peirce's existential graphs (EGs):


The first 10 slides are a self-contained intro to FOL plus metalanguage.
The remaining slides get into advanced topics in language and logic.
Then compare that to the intro to VOWL notation in


By contrast, this hugely complex document admits that "Familiarity with
OWL and other Semantic Web technologies is required to understand this


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>