Re: ChatGPT and ontologies

Hi Dave!

On 09.02.2023 12:43, Dave Reynolds wrote:
 > There's already been some discussion here on ChatGPT and the extent to
 > which it can, or can't, do things like generate sparql queries and the
 > like; and people may be getting bored of the ChatGPT hype. However, in
 > case of interest, here's some notes on some lightweight playing with it
 > as an aid in writing simple ontologies:
 >
 > https://www.epimorphics.com/writing-ontologies-with-chatgpt/

I'm a little late, but I found your blog post quite interesting and a
good starting point for own experiments. I believe, given the date of
your post, you must have been using a version of ChatGPT that was based
on GPT-3.5. So I was curious to see whether the current version of
ChatGPT, based on GPT-4 (using ChatGPT+ version of May 24 2023), would
produce better results than the older version.

In sum, ChatGPT-4 produced pretty much the same output as in your
experiments, when reapplying some of your original prompts. It generated
a simple RDFS-style vocabulary, even if explicitly asked to create an
OWL ontology (modulo the use of some OWL terms). It also created a
"name" property with domains for different classes. And it would again
not be able to see the semantic side effects from the multiple domains
for the "name" property. In fact, it insisted that there are none and
that it was "good practice" to do the way it did to "keep the ontology
clear and avoid any confusion". Here is the full transcript:

     https://pastebin.com/qZkzVzNa

Apart from the offline version of ChatGPT-4, I also tried with the
Wolfram Alpha plugin enabled, to see if it would make any attempt to use
the plugin for applying correct reasoning. It didn't, and there were no
significant differences to the results from the offline version. Here is
the transcript:

     https://pastebin.com/ULySeZ2g

Btw, I also tried with Google Bard. When I asked it to "generate an
ontology to describe organisations...", it provided me with an output
that looked strikingly familiar to me. At the end, it listed a single
entry under "Sources" - which happened to be your blog post. So I left
it at that. :-)

Cheers,
Michael

Received on Friday, 9 June 2023 17:33:09 UTC