Ron, (01)
But the question is which tool is only appropriate to a "fraction"
of the total problem. (02)
JFS
>> [Watson] used ontology, but their major database was DB2 -- a good,
>> old fashioned relational DB. For complex reasoning, they used Prolog.
>> See the article (abstract below) about using Prolog to reason with
>> information expressed in UIMA, which was another project by Ferrucci. (03)
RW
> Perhaps this is an example of a typical enterprise's use of ontology.
> A fraction of the total solution but key to driving the understanding of
> the application domain's entire knowledge base. (04)
The original description logics were used in hybrid systems, in which
the DLs served as the T-box (terminology component) and a richer version
of logic served as the A-box (assertion component). But in the current
version of the SemWeb, OWL is the only reasoning engine, and it was
deliberately limited in its capabilities. (05)
Prolog is a much richer system, which can do everything that OWL can do
plus a whole lot more. At our VivoMind company, we have a wide variety
of reasoning tools, but we build them on top of Prolog. That's not
possible with OWL. (06)
We also have a variety of other tools, some of which have been
rewritten in C for better performance, but all of them were originally
written in Prolog. We only translated them to C after we had tested
them and were certain that they were critical for performance. (07)
Please remember that IBM was originally so enthusiastic about the SemWeb
that they hired Guha -- the original designer of RDF. They also have
many people on the Watson project who know OWL, such as Chris Welty.
But when they wanted to build a complete semantic system, they did
not choose RDF and OWL. They chose Prolog and UIMA. We use Prolog
plus conceptual graphs. (08)
Also look at Experian -- one of the 3 largest companies that evaluate
everybody's credit score. They do that in Prolog. It's so critical
to their business that they bought Prologia, the company founded by
the man who built the first version of Prolog. (09)
The simple fact is that you can use Prolog to implement the complete
application, and Prolog has APIs that connect to mainstream software
tools. That is why I say that Prolog is a step *forward* from OWL. (010)
John (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (012)
|