John,
I would have been VERY disappointed if you didn't reply as you did!
Note that I am mostly talking about strict FOL, not anything that can be
done with CL. I look forward to being proved wrong.
-Cory (01)
-----Original Message-----
From: sio-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:sio-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:29 PM
To: sio-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [sio-dev] Sharing and Integrating Ontologies (02)
Cory, (03)
Short answer to all those questions: (04)
All of those objections have been addressed. None of them
are valid. (05)
Longer answers: (06)
> 1) First order isn't good enough - architectures are modal,
> non-monotonic and deontic - in other words, all the stuff that keeps
> logicians up at night but people use all the time. While CL may be
able
> to go beyond FOL and there may be some ways to encode some of these in
> FOL+, the semantic set of modeling languages is essentially open and
so
> must be the ecosystem. (07)
I've answered this question so many times that I've lost count.
To repeat: (08)
Common Logic is a superset of almost every modeling language
ever invented. (09)
To support modal logics and other kinds of things, there is only
one additional operator needed: the that-operator of IKL. With
that one feature, it is possible to support SBVR and every imaginable
modeling language in the universe. (010)
> 2) It is too hard - we want the ecosystem to be friendly to well
defined
> languages as well as those that are not. We want to be able to import
> knowledge that may not be grounded or well formed, we may or may not
> ground it later. To require that every concept that is brought into
the
> ecosystem be formally grounded is too high a bar and would prevent
> adoption. (011)
FOL is as easy to use as any UML diagram, since all of them are versions
of FOL. In fact, all of them can be defined as *dialects* of Common
Logic. For some notations, such as SBVR, you can use IKL as the base. (012)
Please note that I have *never* recommended CLIF or CGIF as modeling
languages. Those languages should be considered the *assembly*
language of knowledge representation. What you should be using
are dialects of CL that have all the goodies anyone might desire. (013)
> 3) It is fragile and does not deal with inconsistency well. (014)
That is true of every digital computer and every program that runs
on any digital computer. But as I said above, I do *not* recommend
that anyone should use CLIF or CGIF by itself. You should take your
favorite modeling language and have somebody who knows Common Logic
and/or IKL define it as a dialect of CL or IKL. Then you can use
all your comfy human-factored tools as before. (015)
> So this will probably get me in deep water on this list, but it seems
> like there is an over-emphasis on FOL. (016)
You've been using FOL all your life without knowing it. I've been
trying to explain that for a long time. (017)
John (018)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/sio-dev/
Join Community:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/sio-dev/
Unsubscribe: mailto:sio-dev-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/SIO/
Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SharingIntegratingOntologies (019)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/sio-dev/
Join Community: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/sio-dev/
Unsubscribe: mailto:sio-dev-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/SIO/
Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SharingIntegratingOntologies (020)
|