RE: Why Triples? (was Re: What do the ontologists want)

>Hmm... but if there are "significant implications" for computational 
>advantages once one gets to the level of automated reasoners, then 
>this is an argument that carries much more practical weight than 
>purely "aesthetic" ones, and _should_ get more air-time. No?

I'm doing my best. There are two cultures represented here, however 
(well, many more than two, but...). One is worried about efficiency 
of reasoning, the other is more worried about efficiency of proof (or 
data format) *checking*. Checking is computationally much easier 
since no (or very limited) searching is involved, and the 
computational advantages are less clear there.

Pat

>
>Same with reasoning - how would you go about querying this alongside 
>e.g. a list of Director, Age Restriction, Country of origin, 
>Duration + another 4 sets I can't think of...
>
>
>Reasoners have been using formats like this since the 1960s. You 
>would unify the two expressions from left to right.
>
>
>I also suspect that there is something happening at a psychological 
>level in these arguments - it's far easier for a human to relate to 
>information in a structure like that below - but is this necessarily 
>the case for machines?
>
>
>Yes, there are significant computational advantages. In general, the 
>more stuff you can incorporate into the unifier, the more efficient 
>the inference search: you tend to be trading an exponential for a 
>linear cost, a very good trade.
>
>
>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