On 5/13/14 3:54 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
> Doug, Aldo, Kingsley, and Ed,
>
> DF
>> both [the Cyc and OWL] expressions say that EVERY squid has exactly 10
>> tentacles; they don't say that any squid exists.
> Sorry. I hastily wrote "there is" in my English sentence. We all make
> such slips, as Aldo also did: "Please read 'max 4' not 'min 4' "
>
> Following are the correct translations for Simon's example:
>
> English: Every squid has as part exactly 10 tentacles.
> CG: [Squid: @every]->(HasPart)->[Tentacle: {*}@10].
>
> AG
>> In OWL (serialised in Turtle):
>>
>> :Mary a [:hasChild max 4] ; :hasChild :Sue , :Bill , _:x .
>> :Sue a :Girl . :Bill :hasTwin _:x .
>>
>> More readable than CG in my view ...
> Very nice. This is better than I had expected. For comparison, I
> rearranged your 4 lines to 2 lines (and replaced 'min' with 'max').
>
> English: Mary has less than 5 children, including a girl named Sue,
> and a pair of twins, one of whom is named Bill."
>
> CG: [Person: Mary]->(HasChild)->[Person: {Sue, Bill, *x, *}@<5]
> [Girl: Sue] [Person: Bill]->(HasTwin)->[Person: ?x]
>
> AG
>> 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
> I agree that the English sentence is less systematic than either the CG
> or the OWL/Turtle translation. But the readability of any formalism
> depends heavily on prior experience in using it. (01)
Yes, and this is nice demonstration of what Turtle (as opposed to the
ghastly RDF/XML) notation brings to the table, in regards to RDF's
virtues as a language for digital rendition of natural language sentences. (02)
>
> KI
>> Yes, but how does one lift your example into a HTTP network medium
>> where documents create a hypermedia mesh of Linked Documents comprised
>> of content that delivers Linked Data?
> The primary design goal for CGs is to serve as an intermediate language
> between NLs and formal notations. A major use for VivoMind software is
> to analyze documents with *no links* and *discover* the relevant links. (03)
And I would encourage you to make this available as a Web Service. And
by that I am not saying it has to be a $0.00 affair. Doing that will be
beneficial to all. (04)
>
> For examples, see http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/goal7.pdf . None of the
> documents analyzed for those applications had any annotations. We're
> happy to use linked data, but our software can also create the links. (05)
I am very confident that your software can create linked data with ease.
Linked Data is simply about the digital terms rendition aspect of this
digital statement from NL sentences endeavor. (06)
I would really like to look at Linked Data generated from your system.
I've read (and studied in detail) a lot of more material written by you
over the years, so I have a strong sense of what I am urging to you
expose to the public, via World Wide Web :-) (07)
-- (08)
Regards, (09)
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 (010)
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)
|