- 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