W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > November 2001


From: Smith, Ned <ned.smith@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:37:54 -0800
Message-ID: <0DCC27458EB5D51181840002A507069E0C3135@orsmsx117.jf.intel.com>
To: "'Pat Hayes'" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Hash: SHA1

I'm quite interested in seeing item 1) below realized. Scenario 3) in
the use cases I proposed is tied to proof carrying authorization.

BTW: How would you classify the language you describe below? The
language is more expressive than a description logic, yet not exactly
a 1st order logic or type theory logic. Are you suggesting this is
the language WebOnt will define? In what ways does DAML+OIL hit/miss
the objective?


Ned M. Smith
Intel Architecture Labs          Phone: 503.264.2692
2111 N.E. 25th Ave               Fax: 503.264.6225
Hillsoboro OR. 97124            mailto:ned.smith@intel.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 8:40 AM
> To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> What I would like:
> 1. An ontology language which was expressive and 'natural' enough
> to  encode most currently extant ontologies. That is considerably
> more  expressive than a description logic, but it can have a
> description  logic as a natural sublanguage (the part of the larger
> language that  deals with type-class reasoning). The natural choice
> would be some  variant of either an extended first-order logic such
> as ISO-KIF, or  possibly a type theory-based logic like LF. Part of
> the development  work would be to include a notion of
> proof-carrying authorization in  the proof theory of the ontology
> language.
> 2. The homework would be to integrate this expressive language with
>  the kind of human-oriented interface being developed in the
> context  of the DARPA RKF project, in which a 'graphic' interface
> allows 
> subject-mater experts who know zilch about KR or logic to fairly 
> easily, with some training and practice, create large, complex 
> ontologies in man-month timeframes. Hopefully, this could be
> designed  in such a way that later work could build on earlier
> work, in the  sense that the concepts developed in earlier
> ontologies can be 
> utilised in later ones.
> 3. In a parallel effort, a fairly small team of ontological
> engineers  can systematically collect existing useful ontologies of
> broad 
> utility - of which there are now several hundred, covering topics 
> such as: time-intervals and calendars, part/whole mereological 
> theories, spatial reasoning, order-sensitive reasoning, theories of
>  networks and reticulations, process and action descriptions, 
> industrial processes, etc. etc. . Some of these are more 'abstract'
>  than others; the sources range from philosophical analyses to 
> industrial standards organizations; but they can all be put into a 
> common framework, and indeed are being so put into a subset of 
> ISO-KIF by a small team of people at Teknowledge, right now.
> All of this is actual work in progress, and could be adopted and
> put  into the service of the WebOnt effort immediately. It seems
> silly to  ignore it.
> Pat Hayes
> -- 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> - IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
> 40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
> phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

Version: PGP 6.5.3

Received on Friday, 30 November 2001 14:38:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:40 UTC