Some comments below. (01)
Thanks,
Leo (02)
-----Original Message-----
From: uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:uos-convene-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 2:13 PM
To: Bill Andersen; Upper Ontology Summit convention
Subject: Re: Fwd: [uos-convene] Essential or Not (03)
Bill, (04)
Just two points: (05)
1. Immaturity is a relative term. You can have technology that
is sufficiently mature to be useful even though it is far
from what we'd like to have in the long run. As scientists,
we have to take a long-term view. As engineers, we have to
solve the problems we face today. (06)
2. That's the ideal way to use RDF and OWL (and I wouldn't hold
my breath waiting for SWRL): (07)
LEO: In some internal research we are translating OWL and SWRL
(originally also RuleML, but gave up on that) into Prolog. Although the
OWL translation is still incomplete, we have much of it done, i.e.,
what we currently need. The SWRL was relatively easy to translate,
since the rules are Horn-like. We originally use Cerebra to create the
ontologies/KB (it had a nice Visio visualizer), but wanted very
efficient runtime deductive reasoning. (08)
LEO: The translation was not without its problems, but the resulting
Prolog (using the commercial AMZI! Prolog, not XSB, which we originally
considered; and I had used binProlog in the past: another very nice
Prolog), with various transformations (e.g., extensionalizing as much
as possible, asserting markers in a kind of bottom-up fashion to better
control redundant search/computation, etc.) is pretty efficient. (09)
> We're bombarded daily with the "Why don't you use OWL?"
> question. We use a logic programming semantics at Ontology Works
> because it's the only way we (or anyone else) knows of to do the
> things we do fast enough to satisfy our customers -- database
> product customers with LOTS of data. Period. Dot. No OWL except
> in an import/export mode because it just won't (even with the
> proposed extensions in 1.1) do what we need [in terms of
> expressiveness and query speed]. Maybe SWRL or some other rule
> extension will help, but we're not holding our breath and meanwhile
> we'll just keep on working. (010)
At VivoMind, we tried to use the tools that were edicted for
RDF and OWL, and everything kept blowing up, running out of
space, etc., etc. (I won't mention which tools were edicted.) (011)
LEO: On another project, we used Jena2, which supports OWL and their
own rule format/engine. We found that the OWL and rule layer
entailments were different. (012)
So we just implemented a trivial translator to Prolog and/or CL.
It's lightning fast, it works, and it doesn't fail. For output,
we export to anything anybody asks for. (013)
LEO: Do you have complete OWL-DL translator to Prolog and CL? That is
not necessarily trivial. No disjunction or existential in the head is
permitted in Horn-rules, e.g. (014)
Bottom line: Give the customers what they ask for, but don't
let them dictate what tools you use. (015)
John (016)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
Shared Files:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uos-convene/
To Post: mailto:uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UpperOntologySummit/uos-convene/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UpperOntologySummit (017)
|