[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [oor-forum] Ontologies vs Theories / Axioms vs Rules

To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: OpenOntologyRepository-discussion <oor-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Ali SH <asaegyn+out@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:07:02 -0400
Message-id: <CADr70E0g1TmnrVKFU8-SOc_=h15RXcSt42bEDDzGtamLcbTAiA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Bijan,

[AH] Allow me to attempt re-phrasing what's been said. In contrast to a paradigm for ontologies like Cyc, whereby one tries to model the domain as faithfully and completely in one formalism and then delegates reasoning tasks based on the analysis of this expressive representation;
[BP] Is that how Cyc works? That's not my understanding, but whatever :)

I over simplified and in fact cringed after reading the sent email. What I meant to contrast is that in many ways Cyc is an example of a paradigm which represents the domain in an expressive language and then finds the appropriate subsets that match decidable logics for reasoning. At least, that's my understanding. It uses a variety of reasoners.

[BP] The problem with super expressive logics such as Common Logic is, roughly, the tool support sucks and probably sucks for the forseeable future.

I would hope that with the current work under way by the Bremen group (HeTS) and the Toronto group (COLORE), a CL ontology could be factored into more tractable fragments. Of course, not to mention a number of CL reasoners currently under development and the environment being developed by CameronRoss. Needless to say, I'm more optimistic about utilizing more expressive languages.

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In the end, it shouldn't really affect what you're trying to do. If you need to represent something, you need to represent it. If you put it in your "ontology" rather than in your "rule base", but the answers are the same, does it *really* matter?

Admittedly, the surface language might end up not mattering much, but I certainly was confused as to what people meant by Rule, and clarifications such as this thread can help avoid pointless future confusion when talking to different groups of people :D. Further, in the context of the OOR and using the OMV to tag various registered ontologies and create web-services and workflows around what is in the OOR, these distinctions could come to bear. 

Presumably, we're going to see more OWL+SWRL or RIF ontologies being deployed and registered in the repository. How will the SWRL or RIF modules be stored and what is the nature of their relationship (using OMV or an extension) to the OWL ontologies? What is the nature of a subset of some CL ontology that maps to some OWL+SWRL combo? And so on. To what extent can these mappings be automated and tools / services orchestrated to solve ontology related problems for reseachers / professionals?

Indeed, in the conference call earlier this week (http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2011_10_18), I think there was a suggestion for rules should be stored externally(?). The sense I got was that not everyone involved in the discussion was clear about the distinction between rules / axioms, so it seems rather relevant.


Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/oor-forum/  
Subscribe: mailto:oor-forum-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/oor-forum/  
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OOR/ 
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository     (01)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>