On Mar 5, 2006, at 17:06 , Obrst, Leo J. wrote: (01)
> Oh, come on, Bill. Since when are relational databases reasoning
> systems? Since programming was invented, i.e., a program represents
> some programmer's thoughts about the data and what he/she means about
> that data? So programs that use databases are reasoning systems?
> Because programs encapsulate human reasoning? (02)
Simple existence proof: (03)
[1]
(forall (?x ?y) (=> (or (brother ?x ?y) (sister ?x ?y)) (sibling ?x ?
y))) (04)
[2]
create view sibling as
SELECT *
FROM brother
UNION
SELECT *
FROM sister (05)
Which piece of syntax, under evaluation, is "logical"? Which is
reasoning? (06)
I have no doubt that some sufficiently clever programmer could embed
a tableau or resolution prover into a complete RDB. The connections
between databases and theorem proving are well elucidated in:
"Principles of Database & Knowledge-Base Systems Vol. 1 & II", by
Jeff Ullmann. (07)
> This is silly, sorry.
>
> If ontology is about organization, you should be very happy with OWL,
> since as a description logic (also called terminological logic,
> classification logic), it is focused on classification and nearly
> nothing else. Deductive reasoning doesn't really even figure until you
> add SWRL. (08)
OWL is precisely a deductive system, so it's a candidate for the
organizational task. There are many other candidates with other
properties, however. (09)
> I think you need to re-evaluate your rhetoric about this stuff! ;)
> (Hey, I'm am undergoing rhetorical revamping myself; I need company!). (010)
Well, perhaps, but it gets people thinking.... :-D (011)
.bill (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|