Barry, (01)
Syntax attracts inflammatory tirades, and that proposal is more
controversial than any other: (02)
> I hope that one OBO Foundry criterion, at least, is non-controversial
> to Patrick, this is the criterion to the effect that the ontologies
> use a common syntax. Currently this may be either OBO or OWL, but we
> would be happy to extend it to FOL / CL, and I personally would
> welcome the creation of FOL-based bio-ontologies. (03)
The stated goal of Common Logic was to avoid or at least mitigate
such controversies by using an *abstract syntax* that brings a
large number of concrete syntaxes under a common semantic
umbrella. (04)
With CL, it becomes possible to provide automatic translators among
all syntaxes that are compatible with the common semantics. That
includes OWL and RDF(S), whose model-theoretic foundation is compatible
with CL. In fact, Pat Hayes was one of the co-authors of the documents
for the semantics of both Common Logic and RDF(S). (05)
John (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2008/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (07)
|