Proposal: OWL 3 as an upgrade to OWL 2
38 views
Skip to first unread message
John F Sowa
Jan 3, 2025, 2:33:33 PMJan 3
to ontolog-forum, CG
First-order logic is necessary and sufficient to specify any and every program that runs on a digital computer. But OWL 2 is limited, quirky, and far more difficult to learn and use that FOL.
Recommendation: Design OWL 3 as exactly compatible with the OWL 2 hierarchy, but replace Turtle or other notations for the constraint language with an easy to read, write, and remember version of FOL. For upward compatibility, keep all the OWL 2 features and syntax as an option which shall remain available in all future upgrades to OWL 3.
Syntax for the OWL 3 constraint language: The reserved words and phrases that are used to represent constraints: Some; Every; and; or; not; if... then,,,; only if; if and only if.
Every statement in the constraint language shall be a syntactically correct English sentence, which uses the reserved words above plus whatever words or symbols anybody chooses to represents entities in the subject domain.
Result: Statements in the constraint language may be read without any training by anybody who can read English. Learning to write the constraint language will require much less training than learning to write anything in OWL 2.
Observation: The very intelligent logicians who designed OWL 1 and 2, made an incorrect assumption about issues of decidability.
(1) undecidable statements are very complex, and nobody but a highly trained and knowledgeable logician would know how to write one,; 99.99% of software developers would not know how to read or write such a statement.
(2) Undecidable statements only cause a problem for a theorem prover; they would NEVER cause any problem if and when they are used to state a constraint and use a constraint.
(3) But the syntactic constraints to prevent undecidable statements cause Turtle and other notations to become far more complex, unreadable, and unwritable than pure simple FOL expressed as English sentences,
(4) For authors who do not read or write English, it's easy to specify exactly equivalent versions in every language spoken at the United Nations. Every one of those versions would have a simple and efficient translation to the English version.
John
alex.shkotin
Jan 5, 2025, 12:48:10 AMJan 5
to ontolog-forum
John,
We have the language exactly as you describe "ACE appears perfectly natural, but — being a controlled subset of English — is in fact a formal language. ACE texts are computer-processable and can be unambiguously translated into discourse representation structures, a syntactic variant of first-order logic. Discourse representation structures derived from ACE texts have been translated into various other languages, for instance into FOL, FLUX, RuleML, R2ML, TPTP, and a rule format to be used for Courteous Logic Programs and for stable model semantics. Using discourse representation structures as inter-lingua we have developed a bidirectional translation of ACE into and from OWL 2 and a translation into SWRL." see http://attempto.ifi.uzh.ch/site/
Usability of language is a subtle thing. But crucial is a kind of knowledge processing we have on texts in this language. Here [1] is a log from reasoner.
And here [2] is reasoner services.
Why not ACE?
Alex
[1]
INFO 08:39:53 ------------------------------- Running Reasoner -------------------------------
INFO 08:39:54 Pre-computing inferences:
INFO 08:39:54 - class hierarchy
INFO 08:39:54 - object property hierarchy
INFO 08:39:54 - data property hierarchy
INFO 08:39:54 - class assertions
INFO 08:39:54 - object property assertions
INFO 08:39:54 - data property assertions
INFO 08:39:54 - same individuals
INFO 08:40:00 Ontologies processed in 6595 ms by HermiT
[2]
пятница, 3 января 2025 г. в 22:33:33 UTC+3, John F Sowa:
Pascal Hitzler
Jan 6, 2025, 7:48:04 PMJan 6
to ontolo...@googlegroups.com, Shimizu, Cogan Matthew
Let me just comment on the first point (and that does not at all mean
that I don't have objections to others:
> OWL 2 is limited, quirky,
> and far more difficult to learn and use that FOL.
The only scientific assessment I know of regarding this is Cogan
Shimizu's Master thesis - regretfully we never published the results
elsewhere. It is available from
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/etd/r/1501/10?clear=10&p10_accession_num=wright1503504081751496
- the results are rigorous (as in: publishable without any reservations
as far as I'm concerned), see section 5.2.
It was a rigorous user evaluation comparing Manchester syntax,
Description Logic syntax, and First-order Logic syntax, along
readability, correctness, timing (i.e. how long it took to answer
questions). Most of the nine comparisons did not show statistical
significance, but three of them did:
description logic was more readable than manchester syntax
description logic lead to higher answer correctness than first-order logic
description logic led to quicker responses than manchester syntax
we found no other differences that were statistically significant,
although the raw values showed description logic syntax ahead on all
comparisons. We didn't have a ton of test subjects ... given the raw
data I conjecture that we get statistical significance if we run this
same experiment with more data points.
This said, a different paper -
https://people.cs.ksu.edu/~hitzler/pub2/2016-ROWL-Eval.pdf - published
at ESWC 2017 as full conference paper - showed (again in a user study,
with statistical significance) that a pseudo-rule-syntax for (suitable)
OWL axioms is better than using the standard Protege interface. Probably
no surprise (and we should probably add a rule syntax to the study in
Cogan's Master syntax, get more test subjects, and get it properly
published - my hypothesis is that rules are ahead of description logic
syntax which is ahead of first-order logic syntax. Which in a sense is
the result you'd expect because rules for expressing OWL axioms is a
simpler (i.e., more restrictive) formalism than description logic
syntax, which in turn is more restrictive than first-order logic syntax.)
Pascal.
> they would *NEVER *cause any problem if and when they are used to state
> All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
> For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
> unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info <http://
> ontologforum.org/info>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com <mailto:ontolog-
> forum+un...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-
> forum/017179ee38854ddca5fde3a9081cf1eb%40c0389cc081fa439d92e6cde754e96276 <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/017179ee38854ddca5fde3a9081cf1eb%40c0389cc081fa439d92e6cde754e96276?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
Pascal Hitzler
Lloyd T. Smith Creativity in Engineering Chair
Director, Center for AI and Data Science CAIDS
Director, Inst. for Digital Agriculture and Adv. Analyt. ID3A
Kansas State University http://www.pascal-hitzler.de
http://www.daselab.org http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
http://k-state.edu/ID3A https://neurosymbolic-ai-journal.com
that I don't have objections to others:
> OWL 2 is limited, quirky,
> and far more difficult to learn and use that FOL.
Shimizu's Master thesis - regretfully we never published the results
elsewhere. It is available from
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/etd/r/1501/10?clear=10&p10_accession_num=wright1503504081751496
- the results are rigorous (as in: publishable without any reservations
as far as I'm concerned), see section 5.2.
It was a rigorous user evaluation comparing Manchester syntax,
Description Logic syntax, and First-order Logic syntax, along
readability, correctness, timing (i.e. how long it took to answer
questions). Most of the nine comparisons did not show statistical
significance, but three of them did:
description logic was more readable than manchester syntax
description logic lead to higher answer correctness than first-order logic
description logic led to quicker responses than manchester syntax
we found no other differences that were statistically significant,
although the raw values showed description logic syntax ahead on all
comparisons. We didn't have a ton of test subjects ... given the raw
data I conjecture that we get statistical significance if we run this
same experiment with more data points.
This said, a different paper -
https://people.cs.ksu.edu/~hitzler/pub2/2016-ROWL-Eval.pdf - published
at ESWC 2017 as full conference paper - showed (again in a user study,
with statistical significance) that a pseudo-rule-syntax for (suitable)
OWL axioms is better than using the standard Protege interface. Probably
no surprise (and we should probably add a rule syntax to the study in
Cogan's Master syntax, get more test subjects, and get it properly
published - my hypothesis is that rules are ahead of description logic
syntax which is ahead of first-order logic syntax. Which in a sense is
the result you'd expect because rules for expressing OWL axioms is a
simpler (i.e., more restrictive) formalism than description logic
syntax, which in turn is more restrictive than first-order logic syntax.)
Pascal.
> a constraint and use a constraint.
>
> (3) But the syntactic constraints to prevent undecidable statements
> cause Turtle and other notations to become far more complex, unreadable,
> and unwritable than pure simple FOL expressed as English sentences,
>
> (4) For authors who do not read or write English, it's easy to specify
> exactly equivalent versions in every language spoken at the United
> Nations. Every one of those versions would have a simple and efficient
> translation to the English version.
>
> John
>
> --
>
> (3) But the syntactic constraints to prevent undecidable statements
> cause Turtle and other notations to become far more complex, unreadable,
> and unwritable than pure simple FOL expressed as English sentences,
>
> (4) For authors who do not read or write English, it's easy to specify
> exactly equivalent versions in every language spoken at the United
> Nations. Every one of those versions would have a simple and efficient
> translation to the English version.
>
> John
>
> All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
> For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
> unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info <http://
> ontologforum.org/info>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com <mailto:ontolog-
> forum+un...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-
> forum/017179ee38854ddca5fde3a9081cf1eb%40c0389cc081fa439d92e6cde754e96276 <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/017179ee38854ddca5fde3a9081cf1eb%40c0389cc081fa439d92e6cde754e96276?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
Pascal Hitzler
Lloyd T. Smith Creativity in Engineering Chair
Director, Center for AI and Data Science CAIDS
Director, Inst. for Digital Agriculture and Adv. Analyt. ID3A
Kansas State University http://www.pascal-hitzler.de
http://www.daselab.org http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
http://k-state.edu/ID3A https://neurosymbolic-ai-journal.com
Stefan Decker
Jan 7, 2025, 8:11:36 AMJan 7
to ontolo...@googlegroups.com, Shimizu, Cogan Matthew
Dear Pascal, ,
Thank you for your input.
Your references appear to focus on evaluating the user interface. I'm curious if you're aware of any research that evaluates the language itself – specifically, the practical benefits and drawbacks of features like the separation of Classes and Instances, Class Constructors, and the Open World Assumption.
In my experience, SHACL seems to be more suitable than OWL 2 for many of my use cases - for example, data validation, for which the Closed World Assumption is necessary.
Also in may modeling tasks if something is modelled as a Class or Instance often depends on the application scenario - e.g., if a "Whale" may be a class in an application about individual Whales (aka "Free Willy", but maybe in instance in the context of an application about species.
(As far as I am aware Pat Hayes introduced the formalisation of classes as unary predicates (sets) and instances as elements of the domain of discourse in the paper "The Logic of Frames". For formalisation that Pat Hayes developed is a choice among many. For example Classes could also be modeled as elements of the domains.)
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
Best regards,
Stefan
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/1c100a89-698c-414e-a72e-05e8cf3d80f2%40googlemail.com.
paul.w...@btinternet.com
Jan 7, 2025, 12:13:42 PMJan 7
to ontolo...@googlegroups.com, Shimizu, Cogan Matthew
I don’t think this addresses all the concerns around OWL, but the work I did some years ago (https://oro.open.ac.uk/56672/) did look at some of the difficulties people experience with OWL. I was looking specifically at the Manchester OWL Syntax, but some of my comments are more general.
There is also a paper by Sarkar et al. (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.10108), which Pascal himself presented at a conference some years ago. This work provided strong evidence that rules are much easier for humans to understand than DL axioms.
Regards.
Paul Warren
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAJ%3D-dmYX90TU3pjHeXeV_mVEY4EgQ4Z5%2BS6r%3DbJaA8OQ3mFU1A%40mail.gmail.com.
Pascal Hitzler
Jan 7, 2025, 12:23:29 PMJan 7
to ontolo...@googlegroups.com
Not aware of any. Regretfully there is hardly any work exploring such
aspects, and in fact I never managed to get funding for these types of
investigations, sadly. I think they would be very needed, because the
SemWeb/KG community is in a sense flying blind on these aspects. There
are (and always have been) strong (and strongly differing) convictions
but little solid research on these matters. And I think in the end
that's not helpful at all.
My own non-informed take on SHACL is that it would have been more
helpful to closely align the language with the existing schema standard
(i.e., OWL), to avoid even more tower-of-babel-ism. Of course the
semantics would have to be different, but you can do this by defining a
different semantics for (a subset) of OWL, rather than making an
entirely new language - and if different / simpler syntax is needed,
then you can always develop an alternative syntax (like Turtle is for RDF).
But again, due to lack of actual research, I'm flying blind here like
everybody else, i.e. this is "just an informed opinion" :)
Pascal.
> <ontolo...@googlegroups.com <mailto:ontolo...@googlegroups.com>>
> etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/etd/r/1501/10?
> clear=10&p10_accession_num=wright1503504081751496>
> people.cs.ksu.edu/~hitzler/pub2/2016-ROWL-Eval.pdf> - published
> <http://ontologforum.org/info> <http://
> <mailto:ontolog- <mailto:ontolog->
> > forum+un...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:forum%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>.
> >
> forum/017179ee38854ddca5fde3a9081cf1eb%40c0389cc081fa439d92e6cde754e96276 <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/017179ee38854ddca5fde3a9081cf1eb%40c0389cc081fa439d92e6cde754e96276?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/017179ee38854ddca5fde3a9081cf1eb%40c0389cc081fa439d92e6cde754e96276?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.
> http://www.daselab.org <http://www.daselab.org> http://www.semantic-
> web-journal.net <http://www.semantic-web-journal.net>
> http://k-state.edu/ID3A <http://k-state.edu/ID3A> https://
> neurosymbolic-ai-journal.com <https://neurosymbolic-ai-journal.com>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/1c100a89-698c-414e-
> a72e-05e8cf3d80f2%40googlemail.com>.
> dmYX90TU3pjHeXeV_mVEY4EgQ4Z5%2BS6r%3DbJaA8OQ3mFU1A%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAJ%3D-
> dmYX90TU3pjHeXeV_mVEY4EgQ4Z5%2BS6r%3DbJaA8OQ3mFU1A%40mail.gmail.com?
aspects, and in fact I never managed to get funding for these types of
investigations, sadly. I think they would be very needed, because the
SemWeb/KG community is in a sense flying blind on these aspects. There
are (and always have been) strong (and strongly differing) convictions
but little solid research on these matters. And I think in the end
that's not helpful at all.
My own non-informed take on SHACL is that it would have been more
helpful to closely align the language with the existing schema standard
(i.e., OWL), to avoid even more tower-of-babel-ism. Of course the
semantics would have to be different, but you can do this by defining a
different semantics for (a subset) of OWL, rather than making an
entirely new language - and if different / simpler syntax is needed,
then you can always develop an alternative syntax (like Turtle is for RDF).
But again, due to lack of actual research, I'm flying blind here like
everybody else, i.e. this is "just an informed opinion" :)
Pascal.
> wrote:
>
> Let me just comment on the first point (and that does not at all mean
> that I don't have objections to others:
>
> > OWL 2 is limited, quirky,
> > and far more difficult to learn and use that FOL.
>
>
> The only scientific assessment I know of regarding this is Cogan
> Shimizu's Master thesis - regretfully we never published the results
> elsewhere. It is available from
> https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/etd/r/1501/10?
> clear=10&p10_accession_num=wright1503504081751496 <https://
>
> Let me just comment on the first point (and that does not at all mean
> that I don't have objections to others:
>
> > OWL 2 is limited, quirky,
> > and far more difficult to learn and use that FOL.
>
>
> The only scientific assessment I know of regarding this is Cogan
> Shimizu's Master thesis - regretfully we never published the results
> elsewhere. It is available from
> https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/etd/r/1501/10?
> etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/etd/r/1501/10?
> clear=10&p10_accession_num=wright1503504081751496>
> - the results are rigorous (as in: publishable without any reservations
> as far as I'm concerned), see section 5.2.
>
> It was a rigorous user evaluation comparing Manchester syntax,
> Description Logic syntax, and First-order Logic syntax, along
> readability, correctness, timing (i.e. how long it took to answer
> questions). Most of the nine comparisons did not show statistical
> significance, but three of them did:
>
> description logic was more readable than manchester syntax
>
> description logic lead to higher answer correctness than first-order
> logic
>
> description logic led to quicker responses than manchester syntax
>
> we found no other differences that were statistically significant,
> although the raw values showed description logic syntax ahead on all
> comparisons. We didn't have a ton of test subjects ... given the raw
> data I conjecture that we get statistical significance if we run this
> same experiment with more data points.
>
> This said, a different paper -
> https://people.cs.ksu.edu/~hitzler/pub2/2016-ROWL-Eval.pdf <https://
> as far as I'm concerned), see section 5.2.
>
> It was a rigorous user evaluation comparing Manchester syntax,
> Description Logic syntax, and First-order Logic syntax, along
> readability, correctness, timing (i.e. how long it took to answer
> questions). Most of the nine comparisons did not show statistical
> significance, but three of them did:
>
> description logic was more readable than manchester syntax
>
> description logic lead to higher answer correctness than first-order
> logic
>
> description logic led to quicker responses than manchester syntax
>
> we found no other differences that were statistically significant,
> although the raw values showed description logic syntax ahead on all
> comparisons. We didn't have a ton of test subjects ... given the raw
> data I conjecture that we get statistical significance if we run this
> same experiment with more data points.
>
> This said, a different paper -
> people.cs.ksu.edu/~hitzler/pub2/2016-ROWL-Eval.pdf> - published
> > ontologforum.org/info <http://ontologforum.org/info>>
> > ---
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send
> > an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:ontolog-forum%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > ---
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send
> > an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:ontolog- <mailto:ontolog->
> > forum+un...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:forum%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>.
> > To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> ontolog- <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog->
> >
> forum/017179ee38854ddca5fde3a9081cf1eb%40c0389cc081fa439d92e6cde754e96276 <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/017179ee38854ddca5fde3a9081cf1eb%40c0389cc081fa439d92e6cde754e96276?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/017179ee38854ddca5fde3a9081cf1eb%40c0389cc081fa439d92e6cde754e96276?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.
>
> --
> Pascal Hitzler
> Lloyd T. Smith Creativity in Engineering Chair
> Director, Center for AI and Data Science CAIDS
> Director, Inst. for Digital Agriculture and Adv. Analyt. ID3A
> Kansas State University http://www.pascal-hitzler.de <http://
> www.pascal-hitzler.de>
> --
> Pascal Hitzler
> Lloyd T. Smith Creativity in Engineering Chair
> Director, Center for AI and Data Science CAIDS
> Director, Inst. for Digital Agriculture and Adv. Analyt. ID3A
> Kansas State University http://www.pascal-hitzler.de <http://
> http://www.daselab.org <http://www.daselab.org> http://www.semantic-
> web-journal.net <http://www.semantic-web-journal.net>
> http://k-state.edu/ID3A <http://k-state.edu/ID3A> https://
> neurosymbolic-ai-journal.com <https://neurosymbolic-ai-journal.com>
>
> --
> All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
> For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
> --
> All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
> For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
> unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info <http://
> ontologforum.org/info>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:ontolog-forum%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>.
> ontologforum.org/info>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/
> ontolog-forum/1c100a89-698c-414e-a72e-05e8cf3d80f2%40googlemail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/1c100a89-698c-414e-
> a72e-05e8cf3d80f2%40googlemail.com>.
>
> --
> All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
> For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
> unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info <http://
> ontologforum.org/info>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com <mailto:ontolog-
> forum+un...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-
> forum/CAJ%3D-
> --
> All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
> For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
> unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info <http://
> ontologforum.org/info>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com <mailto:ontolog-
> forum+un...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-
> dmYX90TU3pjHeXeV_mVEY4EgQ4Z5%2BS6r%3DbJaA8OQ3mFU1A%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAJ%3D-
> dmYX90TU3pjHeXeV_mVEY4EgQ4Z5%2BS6r%3DbJaA8OQ3mFU1A%40mail.gmail.com?
Ítalo Oliveira
Jan 7, 2025, 1:37:04 PMJan 7
to ontolo...@googlegroups.com
Hello, folks.
I just want to highlight a point connected to this discussion. The machine learning community has been successful in decreasing the barrier to entry into the field by creating user-friendly libraries and apps. The mathematical background is extensive (linear algebra, calculus, statistics, and probability), but nowadays, anyone can build all sorts of machine learning-based applications without knowing this deeply, including dashboards, prediction models, recommender systems, and LLM-based services. My impression is that this type of user-friendly environment and glaring applications are missing in our community. In my opinion, Protégé and the Manchester OWL Syntax are helpful for beginners and practitioners without extensive logic and ontology training. But what else? I can't think of anything right now. I miss the layers of abstraction to bridge the lower-level knowledge onto cool user-friendly applications.
Kind regards,
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/d4f8b5f9-515f-4056-9630-409e8cf761e6%40googlemail.com.
Ítalo Oliveira
Semantics, Cybersecurity, & Services Group (SCS)
Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics, and Computer Science
University of Twente
P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands
E-mail address: i.j.dasil...@utwente.nl
Office: Zilverling 2034
David Poole
Jan 7, 2025, 1:47:40 PMJan 7
to ontolo...@googlegroups.com, Shimizu, Cogan Matthew
Let me support John here. OWL-2 is not a syntax, it is collection of predicates such as ObjectMinCardinality and InverseObjectProperties. Comparing different syntaxes is not relevant to John’s claim.
Here is what should be compared:
Someone wants to say X
- the state it in first-order logic (FOL), using one of the many syntaxes
- they state it in OWL, using one of the many syntaxes
and then evaluate
- the difficulty of doing each
- whether another person can understand the X from the description , and
- which one is easier to reason with.
Try this for multiple (real-world) X’s. See which one wins.
If the OWL community has identified the essence of what people want to state, then OWL will win, but I’d put my money on FOL.
[As far as the rules, you have to decide what to do with the X that cannot be stated in OWL, but can in FOL. Or if X cannot be stated in FOL.]
David
> On Jan 6, 2025, at 4:47 PM, 'Pascal Hitzler' via ontolog-forum <ontolo...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> [CAUTION: Non-UBC Email]
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/1c100a89-698c-414e-a72e-05e8cf3d80f2%40googlemail.com.
Here is what should be compared:
Someone wants to say X
- the state it in first-order logic (FOL), using one of the many syntaxes
- they state it in OWL, using one of the many syntaxes
and then evaluate
- the difficulty of doing each
- whether another person can understand the X from the description , and
- which one is easier to reason with.
Try this for multiple (real-world) X’s. See which one wins.
If the OWL community has identified the essence of what people want to state, then OWL will win, but I’d put my money on FOL.
[As far as the rules, you have to decide what to do with the X that cannot be stated in OWL, but can in FOL. Or if X cannot be stated in FOL.]
David
> On Jan 6, 2025, at 4:47 PM, 'Pascal Hitzler' via ontolog-forum <ontolo...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> [CAUTION: Non-UBC Email]
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/1c100a89-698c-414e-a72e-05e8cf3d80f2%40googlemail.com.
Nadin, Mihai
Jan 7, 2025, 1:49:57 PMJan 7
to ontolo...@googlegroups.com
Italo Oliveira: excellent point.
Sent from planet earth
On Jan 7, 2025, at 10:42 AM, Ítalo Oliveira <italojso...@gmail.com> wrote:
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAOEC0q-NGdGqewFAQt3paxsTqo%2BZ%2BEwDCcLTCbs3P4mG--9yTA%40mail.gmail.com.
Chris Mungall
Jan 7, 2025, 1:57:47 PMJan 7
to ontolo...@googlegroups.com
100%, and this is why templating systems, template-based design patterns, etc are so popular for large biological ontologies
See slides 22 onwards from my ontology patterns workshop keynote:
Aligning Design Patterns Across Multiple Ontologies in the Life Sciences, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7655184.
A small team of expert ontologists with good understanding of FOL/OWL/logic author the templates. A broader community of SMEs author ontologies using concepts and abstractions that meet them where they are at
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAOEC0q-NGdGqewFAQt3paxsTqo%2BZ%2BEwDCcLTCbs3P4mG--9yTA%40mail.gmail.com.
poole
Jan 7, 2025, 4:10:47 PMJan 7
to ontolo...@googlegroups.com
Or a better test may be:
- –
given a description (in FOL vs OWL), determining what it means
- –
given a concept in someone’s mind, determining what description to use. This has three aspects:
- *
determining whether the concept has already been defined
- *
if it has been defined, discovering what description has been used for it
- *
if it is not already defined, finding related concepts that it can be defined in terms of, and finding an appropriate description
- *
- –
Adapted from our AI textbook (with full source): https://artint.info/3e/html/ArtInt3e.Ch16.S3.html
Alex Shkotin
Jan 8, 2025, 4:16:51 AMJan 8
to ontolo...@googlegroups.com, Shimizu, Cogan Matthew
Hi Stefan,
A class of languages where we can apply function to function (as an instance), and where predicate is just bool-function, are called Higher-Order Logic languages.
Mostly used in proof-makers like https://isabelle.in.tum.de/dist/Isabelle2024/doc/prog-prove.pdf here https://isabelle.in.tum.de/documentation.html
" We introduce HOL step by step following the equation HOL = Functional Programming + Logic. We assume that the reader is used to logical and set-theoretic notation and is familiar with the basic concepts of functional programming. Chapter 2 introduces HOL as a functional programming language and explains how to write simple inductive proofs of mostly equational properties of recursive functions. Chapter 3 introduces the rest of HOL: the language of formulas beyond equality, automatic proof tools, single-step proofs, and inductive definitions, an essential specification construct. Chapter 4 introduces Isar, Isabelle’s language for writing structured proofs. "
Usage of these powerful languages for formal ontologies is on the way.
Alex
вт, 7 янв. 2025 г. в 16:11, Stefan Decker <stefan...@gmail.com>:
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAJ%3D-dmYX90TU3pjHeXeV_mVEY4EgQ4Z5%2BS6r%3DbJaA8OQ3mFU1A%40mail.gmail.com.
Alex Shkotin
Jan 9, 2025, 2:44:13 AMJan 9
to ontolo...@googlegroups.com, Shimizu, Cogan Matthew
David,
JFS is talking about OWL3 i.e. yet another formal language for knowledge representation. But IMHO the more the better, as we have with programming languages.
The question is what is the purpose to formalize some set of NL-expressed knowledge? What kind of algorithms are we ready to apply to formulas for fruitful knowledge processing?
If formalization is not readable directly we need just a verbalization tool: formula to NL translation.
And in OWL2 ontology we should keep the NL version of any axiom in annotation - as a good style.
Alex
вт, 7 янв. 2025 г. в 21:47, David Poole <po...@cs.ubc.ca>:
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/91A6352B-A7DD-42FD-BFB6-A0DB62FCDBC4%40cs.ubc.ca.
Alex Shkotin
Jan 9, 2025, 3:14:43 AMJan 9
to ontolo...@googlegroups.com
David,
Following your "Figure 16.5 gives some primitive predicates of OWL. The owl: prefix is an abbreviation for the standard IRI for OWL."
let me add that OWL2\FS is a HOL type language as described here
And I should add that (PDF) English is a HOL language message #1X
In which form do we have theoretical knowledge right now in computers, publicly and privately? Something like NL+Math. Except genAI
If we formalize this knowledge do we get a huge number of formal axiomatic theories?
What are the advantages we get?
Knowledge concentration is one. (PDF) Theory framework - knowledge hub message #1.
Alex
ср, 8 янв. 2025 г. в 00:10, poole <po...@cs.ubc.ca>:
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/EC2A2153-DF25-435C-A1B8-4F8905C35B58%40cs.ubc.ca.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages