- From: Marijke Keet <keet@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 15:11:50 +0200
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: Chris Mungall <cjm@fruitfly.org>, Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
> > <snip> >>> >>> The history of computing is the history of "design patterns" at one >>> level that eventually get built into "higher level languages" at the >>> next level of abstraction up. >> >> I think I have a less optimistic view of progress in computer >> science. For example, many of the paradigmatic GoF design patterns >> are there to make up for deficiencies in the OO languages that >> *succeeded* more expressive and abstract functional languages. > > Amen to that. And we are living through an exactly similar transition > in representational languages, where DLs are re-inventing axioms of > classical logic. it's not quite re-inventing, although it may be that "new features added to a language" are sometimes being sold as if they were novel. As for the n-aries in DLs (which are indeed trivial in CL), that is possible in DLs in theory for over 10 years and in software with iCOM for >7 years -- and do the automated reasoning over it, unlike with several other logics. I like more expressivity as well, but then, I'm not implementing systems where I'd have to wait 'long' for query answers or see my computer hang upon classifying 1 instance in an 50-concept small ontology (with the latest pellet for owl 1.1). I did try to load in Protégé and SWOOP the FMA-lite, which is a 43MB OWL file. It failed. Reasoning over sections of the FMA that take into account only some constructors is possible [1], which brings us back to your earlier comment that "people have argued against more expressive languages, in fact have argued with great force and vehemence,": if we have to chop up large ontologies anyway in order to be able to reason over them, we might as well do that in a structured manner with some simpler languages and (semi-)automated conversions for "dumbing down" a large and/or rich ontology to some slimmed version that is computationally tractable; that is, taking best of 'both worlds' with expressivity where desired/needed and performance where needed/desired. [1] Zhang S, Bodenreider O, Golbreich C. Experience in reasoning with the Foundational Model of Anatomy in OWL-DL. In:Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing 2006, Altman RB, Dunker AK, Hunter L, Murray TA, Klein TE, (Eds.). World Scientific, 2006, 200-211. http://helix-web.stanford.edu/psb06/zhang_s.pdf regards, marijke C. Maria Keet KRDB Research Centre Faculty of Computer Science Free University of Bozen-Bolzano Piazza Domenicani 3 39100 Bozen-Bolzano Italy tel: +39 04710 16128 fax: +39 04710 16009 email: keet@inf.unibz.it <mailto:keet@inf.unibz.it> web: http://www.inf.unibz.it/krdb/ home: http://www.meteck.org <http://www.meteck.org/>
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2007 13:12:00 UTC