On Tue, May 13, 2014 01:47, John F Sowa wrote:
> On 5/12/2014 9:13 PM, Simon Spero wrote:
>> In Cyc you can say:
>>
>> (implies (isa ?S Squid)
>> (thereExistExactly 10 ?T
>> (and (isa ?T Tentacle) (anatomicalParts ?S ?T))))
>>
>> In OWL you can write:
>> SubClassOf(:Squid
>> ObjectExactCardinality(10
>> :anatomicalParts :Tentacle))
>...
> Let's assume that we would like to express the above Cyc or OWL
> in English as "There is a squid that has exactly 10 tentacles." (01)
John, both of these expressions say that EVERY squid has exactly 10
tentacles; they don't say that any squid exists. Your English sentence
says that there exists at least one such squid, but does not prevent there
from being squids that have other numbers of tentacles. (02)
-- doug (03)
> In the CG notation of the 1980s, that would be represented as
>
> [Squid]->(HasPart)->[Tentacle: {*}@10].
>
> In English, this can be read "There is a squid that has as parts
> exactly 10 tentacles." The notation {*}@10 is defined by an expansion
> to a node of type Set, every element of which is of type Tentacle.
> The node [Squid] is linked by HasPart to each node of type Tentacle.
> But you would not normally do that expansion, except as a step
> during some reasoning process.
>
> One person who did some work on the definitions and expansions
> of the set notation for CGs is Jim Slagle, who was a professor
> at the University of Minnesota.
>
> Jim is blind, but he really liked CGs. The university bought
> one of the first Kurzweil reading machines for him, but he also
> needed human readers who would explain the diagrams (and record
> the explanations). Although he was blind (or perhaps because he
> was blind), he had a good ability to "visualize" structures.
>
> As another example, assume "Mary has less than 5 children, including
> a girl named Sue, and a pair of twins, one of whom is named Bill."
> In CGs, that would be
>
> [Person: Mary]->(HasChild)->[Person: {Sue, Bill, *x, *}@<5]
> [Girl: Sue] [Person: Bill]->(HasTwin)->[Person: ?x]
>
> In the pure graphic notation, coreference links could be drawn
> as dotted lines. Or they could be left as labels like *x,
> if the diagram is complex and crowded.
>
> How would you express that in OWL?
>
> 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
>
> (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)
|