John, (01)
I don't think we are communicating. My point was that requiring a relatively
common kind of design specification to be phrased as 10 triples instead of
three nested nodes does not make the information more accessible to anyone,
including reasoning engines. It is a religious view of simplicity, not a
pragmatic one. (As Doug Foxvog observed on a related thread, if you love
simplicity, you should use Turing notation.) (02)
I have been working in the area of controlled natural languages for 5 years, I
am familiar with ACE (we started with it) and Kuhn's recent overview paper, and
I don't see how that is relevant. You don't want to force the recipient of the
requirement to parse a CNL in order to comprehend the requirement in his
system. The CNL tool is a special app that reads the human-readable form and
generates a suitable structured form for interchange. But there are lots of
tools that do some kind of structured requirements capture with much smaller
caliber guns. (03)
-Ed (04)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
> summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 8:56 PM
> To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] The tools are not the problem (yet)
>
> Ed,
>
> If you like that notation, the content words and syntax can be defined as a
> very simple controlled English:
>
> > PI-1 instantiates the class C-1.
> > C-1 is a DesignElement
> > C-1 has designation "P101A"
> > C-1 is a part of PS-1.
> > PS-1 is a PlantDesign ...
> > PI-1 has a required property RP-101.
> > RP-101 is a discharge-pressure
> > RP-101 is greater-or-equal to Q-101.
> > Q-101 has unit KPa
> > Q-101 has ratio 5000.
>
> But there are much better CNLs that are easier to read, write, and translate
> to logic. For a extensive survey of CNLs, see
> http://www.tkuhn.ch/talk/larc2013cnl.pdf
>
> ACE is the CNL that Kuhn uses, but he presents a fair picture of many others.
>
> For a Multilingual Semantic-wiki based on ACE, see
> http://attempto.ifi.uzh.ch/site/pubs/papers/eswc2013_kaljurand.pdf
>
> > By comparison, in XML this could be phrased:
> >
> > <rdl:PlantDesign id="PS-1" name="Dow-A47-2013-rev2">
> > ...
> > <rdl:DesignElement id="C-1" designation="P-101A" type="Pump">
> > ...
> > <HI50.7:minimumDischargePressure unit="KPa" value="5000" />
> > ...
> > </rdl:DesignElement>
>
> That is the reductio ad absurdum. Google understands the requirements for
> storage and processing of high volumes of data. That is why they use JSON
> instead of the XML-based notations.
>
> For Watson, IBM used the XML-based UIMA notation. But for complex
> reasoning, they discovered that Prolog was far superior in speed, flexibility,
> and expressive power than the native UIMA software.
>
> I agree that tools are not the problem. The major problem is the XML
> mindset. That turgid, bloated notation blinds people from seeing the
> underlying simplicity.
>
> John
>
> __________________________________________________________
> _______
> 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/OntologySummit2014/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
> bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (06)
|