- From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@PioneerCA.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:42:59 -0800
- To: "Matt Williams" <matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk>, "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>
I'm not fluent in DL theory, so I can't offer any practical help there.
But I can offer you a sophisticated system to experiment with,
which might help develop your insight.
my Knowledge Explorer (mKE) helps you create, update and
search hierarchies of classes and instances.
mKE has built-in algorithms to
walk the hierarchy, executing a procedure at each class/instance
simplify lattice
classify unknown based on properties
integrate instances and/or species into a new class
based on properties
differentiate a class into new subclasses based on properties
count visits to instances & classes
count number of instance & classes
determine least upper bound of classes
determine "distance" between instances/classes
plus more that I don't remember off the top of my head.
The corresponding rules won't be obvious unless you're
fluent in the Unicon language, but I can work up the rules
for you.
BTW, mKE can also execute rules.
Dick McCullough
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;
http://mKRmKE.org/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Williams" <matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk>
To: "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 1:38 PM
Subject: Ontological Reasoning as Rules
>
> Dear All,
>
> I'm trying to reduce an ontology to a set of rules, i order to compare
> it with other approaches.
>
> I know that there are problems with this and OWL-DL reasoning. However,
> I am only concerned with reasoning over ground instances. In this case,
> I would have thought that many of the difficulties would disappear.
>
> Would people agree?
> Can you point me to any references about people who have done something
> similar?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
> --
> http://acl.icnet.uk/~mw
> http://adhominem.blogsome.com/
> +44 (0)7834 899570
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 00:46:53 UTC