Nice game. In OWL (serialised in Turtle): (01)
:Mary a [:hasChild min 4] ;
:hasChild :Sue , :Bill , _:x .
:Sue a :Girl .
:Bill :hasTwin _:x . (02)
More readable than CG in my view ... The problem is not DL OWL or others, but
being iconic enough to support intuition. Usually NL works fine but in this
case OWL/Turtle is more intuitive ;).
Cheers
Aldo (03)
sent by aldo from a mobile (04)
> On 13/mag/2014, at 07:47, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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))
>>
>> Could you show what this looks like in graphical form?
>
> A very simple logic such as EGs would need to supplemented with
> an ontology for sets, elements, cardinality, etc. But I have always
> tried to design the notation to simplify the mapping to and from NLs.
>
> In my 1984 book, I specified conceptual graphs as an extension of EGs
> with syntactic sugar for such things. That syntax is *not* in the CL
> standard, because CL does not include all that ontology.
>
> 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."
> 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
> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|