W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2004

Re: Concept Map VS Topic Map.

From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:31:12 +0200
Message-ID: <4121D060.7010608@virgilio.it>
To: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@comcast.net>
CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Thomas B. Passin wrote:

>
> Lynn, James (Software Services) wrote:
>
>> Tom,
>>
>> Do you happen to have an example of how to prove theoroms using CGs?
>
>
> I don't know anything about coding aspects, however.  I do know that 
> it's not just "path crunching", though.


Just to confirm that - Sowa has always emphasized the FOL aspects of 
CGs, and although I can't find any specific references, I vaguely 
remember a thread which described the path crunching approach in a less 
than flattering light (decidability problems?).

A quick search of sourceforge.net (for "conceptual") brought a few 
possible avenues:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/cogitant/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/prologpluscg/

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

Raw
http://dannyayers.com
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2004 09:34:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:57 UTC