W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2009

Re: EU FP Ontology projects

From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@pioneerca.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 10:36:35 -0800
Message-ID: <64AD86CBC36446899D0603046B7984D6@rhm8200>
To: "Azamat" <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
Cc: "'SW-forum'" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>
BlankAzamat

To give you a little better perspective re
"how can it cover many different views ?",
I have expanded "group" and "sentence".

Here are some excerpts from
http://mkrmke.org/kb/spo.mkr.html.
Some of the forms of iteration
and quantification are omitted.
Questions are formed by replacing some 
element(s) of sentence by ?variable.
"spo" refers to the basic form of
subject predicate object;

begin hierarchy ecp;
   existent;
   /    entity; # physical Entity
   /    group;  # abstract Entity
   //       concept;
   //       enum;
   //       list;
   //       set;
   //       multiset;
   //       hierarchy;
   /    characteristic;  # property
   //       attribute;
   //       part;
   ///          context;
   ///          sentence;
   //       relation;
   //       action;
   //       interaction;
   /    proposition;

   sentence;
   /    statement;
   /    question;
   /    command;
   /    assignment;
   /    conditional;
   /    iteration;
   /    production;
end hierarchy ecp;


#######
# spo #
#######
proposition haspart context, sentence;          # proposition

subject isu object;                             # hierarchy: unit of
subject iss object;                             # hierarchy: species of
subject isa object;                             # hierarchy: unit or species of
begin hierarchy hname; ...; end hierarchy hname;# hierarchy

at space=s, time=t, view=v;                     # context

subject is genus with differentia;              # definition
subject has aname = avalue;                     # attribute
subject has pname = pvalue;                     # part
subject rel rname = rvalue;                     # binary relation
begin relation rname; ...; end relation rname;  # n-ary relation
subject do aname = ename pplist done;           # action=event
subject ido ianame = iename pplist done;        # interaction=interevent
subject causes object;                          # causality interaction

subject ismem ingroup;  # list,set,multiset
subject isalt exgroup;  # enum

do kname pplist done;                           # command: ke action
! sname pplist done;                            # command: UNIX shell action

variable := value;                              # assignment
product := sentence;                            # production

if proplist; then proplist; else proplist; fi;  # conditional
every variable isu object; { proplist; };       # iteration
for all variable isu object; { proplist; };     # quantification
for any variable isu object; { proplist; };     # quantification

#  $variable    # value of variable or product
#  ?variable    # name of question or quantifier variable


Dick McCullough
Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done;
mKE do enhance od Real Intelligence done;
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;
http://mKRmKE.org/

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Azamat 
  To: Richard H. McCullough 
  Cc: 'SW-forum' 
  Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 2:32 AM
  Subject: Re: EU FP Ontology projects


  Thanks, Richard,
  An engaging reading. 

  As I mentioned on other listing, there are two simple criteria to test the real value of schemes, knowledge systems, languages, models, rule systems, or ontologies; see:
  1. How the system treats the category of Thing or Entity;
  2. How the system defines the class of Relationships.
  I'd add here John Sowa's criteria also:
  3. Has it been implemented and used successfully on a significant number of practical applications?
  4. Is the upper ontology necessary for the practical applications?

  Here is an endless listing of ontology projects, http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/kst/ontology-sources.html; http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/mfkb/related.html, ongoing and past away, to check up the rule.
  Looking at the content, i found the key elements of your knowledge system a bit... idiosyncratic: 
  Hierarchy: [Existent: Group; Entity; Characteristic: part, attribute, relation, action, interaction; Proposition]
  Knowledge: [Knowledge is an identification of the facts of reality] 
  Context: [Context is a list of propositions].

  I wonder how  can it cover many different views with such a narrow reading of relationship, knowledge, and context? Also the KE looks in need of some systematic formalization.

  Azamat Abdoullaev



    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Richard H. McCullough 
    To: Azamat ; 'SW-forum' 
    Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 8:00 PM
    Subject: Re: EU FP Ontology projects


    Azamat

    mKR/mKE (see http://mkrmke.org) is designed to handle
    many different viewpoints.  Also, an existing hierarchy
    can be reduced by integrating existing concepts, or
    expanded by differentiating existing concepts.

    P.S.  I have adapted a new philosophy regarding RDF/OWL.
    I have given up on the idea of suggesting new semantics,
    and decided to represent the RDF/OWL semantics in mKR.
    mKR can be used as an alternate syntax, much like N3.
    The basic statements would look like

        at view = namespace;
        subject type object;
        subject subClassOf object;
        subject ismem container;   # list,set,bag
        subject rel property = object;

    Both subject and object can be comma-separated lists.
    Using mKR and Qnames gives more compact, readable statements.
    All mKE tools are available for RDF/OWL users by entering

        ke -rdf

    Other options include OWL, SUMO, OpenCyc,
    Google, Amazon.com.

    Here's one simple example of the use of lists

    Dick McCullough, Maryann McCullough rel child =
            Ted McCullough, Sheila McCullough;
    Ted McCullough, Sheila McCullough rel parent =
            Dick McCullough, Maryann McCullough;


    Dick McCullough
    Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done;
    mKE do enhance od Real Intelligence done;
    knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
    knowledge haspart proposition list;
    http://mKRmKE.org/

      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Azamat 
      To: 'SW-forum' 
      Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 3:53 AM
      Subject: EU FP Ontology projects


      Dear All,

      Making a review, I am looking for the full listing of FP6/FP7 ontology-centered semantic technology projects: 
      1. ESSI or STI Projects (Knowledge Web, SUPER, TripCom).
      [The mission of STI International  - Semantic Technology Institute International - is to establish Semantics as a core pillar of modern computer engineering.]
      2. ONTORULE project.
      [The objective of ONTORULE is to integrate all the required pieces of knowledge and technology to allow the acquisition of ontologies and rules from the most appropriate sources, including natural language documents]
      3. NeOn project.
      [Our aim is to advance the state of the art in using ontologies for large-scale semantic applications in the distributed organizations. Particularly, we aim at improving the capability to handle multiple networked ontologies that exist in a particular context, are created collaboratively, and might be highly dynamic and constantly evolving.] 
      Which else is promising integrative frameworks, models, methods, techniques, or tools ? 
      I'd appreciate any extension to the short list: web sites, general documents, deliverables, research papers, etc.

      Also, if anybody could comment on the NeOn methodolody: 
      "Most of the existing practices for the development of ontologies focus on a single ontology, on a global consistency of such an ontology, and, in principle, on a linear development. This is very restrictive– it is as if we all communicated in a single language and completely disregarded our cultural or historical specifics. Single ontology means single viewpoint on the problems, situations and solutions. If in our everyday life we use many different viewpoints, why can't designers of semantic applications and engineers developing knowledge models do the same? In NeOn, we see several dimensions, in which the existing single-ontology style of work need to be enriched:...", http://www.neon-project.org/web-content/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23&Itemid=23
      Thanks.
      Azamat Abdoullaev
      http://www.eis.com.cy

      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Jos de Bruijn" <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
      To: <semantic-web@w3.org>
      Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 12:32 PM
      Subject: Postdoc position at Free University of Bozen-Bolzano


      > ============================================================
      > Job: Postdoc position at Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy
      > Duration: 3 years, renewable (by mutual consent) for another 3 years
      > Topics: Knowledge Representation, Description Logics, Rules
      > 
      > Language requirement: English
      > 
      > Application deadline: 25 March 2009
      > ============================================================
      > 
      > 
      > The KRDB research centre at the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano
      > (http://www.inf.unibz.it/krdb/) seeks applicant for a postdoctoral
      > position. The bulk of the research to be carried out is in the context
      > of the ONTORULE project (http://ontorule-project.eu/), and is concerned
      > with the application of Description Logics to business rules and the
      > combination of production rule and Description Logic formalisms. Both
      > representational adequacy and computational complexity play important
      > roles in such combinations.
      > 
      > Candidates must have a strong research record and a solid background in
      > description and/or modal logics. Experience with first-order modal and
      > fixed-point logics, and to a lesser extent experience with active rule
      > languages such as production rules, is considered desirable, but by no
      > means mandatory.
      > 
      > 
      > ============================================================





Blank_Bkgrd.gif
(image/gif attachment: Blank_Bkgrd.gif)

Received on Sunday, 1 March 2009 18:50:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:28 GMT