- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 01:46:37 +0100
- To: "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>
- Cc: Bob MacGregor <macgregor@ISI.EDU>, Deborah McGuinness <dlm@KSL.Stanford.EDU>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
First point: Why we suddenly obsessed with DLs? As I have mentioned, they are nothing more than a particular class of decidable subsets of FOL. The ability to treat classes/predicates as arguments to other predicates is beyond the ability of ANY subset of (standard) FOL, decidable or otherwise. Second point: The ability to treat classes/predicates as arguments to other predicates is of secondary importance. The crucial thing with RDF is that it treats the vocabulary of the language itself as standard classes/predicates that can be arguments to other predicates. This is beyond the ability of almost all logics. It is relatively harmless for a language as weak as RDF, but causes fatal complications when more expressive power is added. Ian On August 15, R.V.Guha writes: > > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> > <html> > <head> > <title></title> > </head> > <body> > Bob,<br> > <br> > Thank you for the clarification. Yes, that is what I meant.<br> > guha<br> > <br> > Bob MacGregor wrote:<br> > <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid01db01c244a5$c82ed440$f8800980@STRIKER"> > <pre wrap="">This discussion started not as a question about the merits of DLs, but > asked what you get when you sacrifice the ability to treat classes/predicates > as arguments to other predicates. Slightly paraphrasing: > > </pre> > <blockquote type="cite"> > <blockquote type="cite"> > <blockquote type="cite"> > <pre wrap="">Clearly, not allowing this feature (classes and arc labels as > first class objects) buys description logics something. > </pre> > </blockquote> > </blockquote> > </blockquote> > <pre wrap=""><!----> > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that CLASSIC allowed > second-order syntax, and in fact made some claims as to the utility of doing > so. I my recollection is correct, then its not the case that we have to make this > particular sacrifice to achieve the "benefits" of a DL. Rather, the trade-off > exists only for certain subclasses of DLs. > > - Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Deborah McGuinness" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dlm@KSL.Stanford.EDU"><dlm@KSL.Stanford.EDU></a> > To: "Ian Horrocks" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk"><horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk></a> > Cc: "R.V.Guha" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:guha@guha.com"><guha@guha.com></a>; <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:www-rdf-logic@w3.org"><www-rdf-logic@w3.org></a> > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 14:31 > Subject: Re: Classes and predicates as first class objects > > > </pre> > <blockquote type="cite"> > <pre wrap="">to support Ian's last statement that DLs are and have been used in a wide > variety of applications and also because people had previously asked for some > example applications, > i include a paragraph from a message i sent a while ago on a related topic > (full message available from > <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Feb/0044.html">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Feb/0044.html</a>) > > This was just a list of some variety of applications of an earlier description > logic - CLASSIC - but it shows applications with references in broad areas. > > "I have helped people use CLASSIC in a series of large applications; the > largest and longest lived was a family of configurators called PROSE/QUESTAR > [1]. This included 17 configurators, some of which were used for a decade. > They were used by AT&T and Lucent. Other major application areas include data > > archeology [2], software discovery [3], query expansion [4], query answering > [5], plan representation [6], knowledge based software engineering [7], and > other domains. We also spent time considering the usability issues of the > language [8,9]." > > Most if not all of these applications (and the application areas in general) > benefited greatly from having the qualities that Ian refers to of reliable and > efficient reasoning. > > Deborah > > [1] Deborah L. McGuinness and Jon Wright. ``An Industrial Strength Description > > Logic-based Configurator Platform''. IEEE Intelligent Systems, Vol. 13, No. 4, > > July/August 1998, pp. 69-77. ) > > [2] Ronald J. Brachman, Peter G. Selfridge, Loren G. Terveen, Boris Altman, > Alex Borgida, Fern Halper, Thomas Kirk, Alan Lazar, Deborah L. McGuinness, > Lori Alperin Resnick. ``Integrated Support for Data Archaeology.'' In > International Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 2:2 > 1993, pages 159--185. > > [3] P. Devanbu, R.J. Brachman, P.G. Selfridge, B.W. Ballard: "LaSSIE: A > knowledge-based software information system" Communications of the ACM, > 34(5):35--49, May 1991. > > [4] Deborah L. McGuinness. ``Ontological Issues for Knowledge-Enhanced > Search''. In the Proceedings of Formal Ontology in Information Systems, June > 1998. Also in Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, > IOS-Press, Washington, DC, 1998. > > [5] Alon Y. Levy, Anand Rajaraman and Joann J. Ordille, ``Query Answering > Algorithms for Information Agents'' Proceedings of the 13th National > Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI-96, Portland, Oregon, August, > 1996. > > [6] P. Devanbu , D. Litman , CLASP - a plan representation and classification > scheme for a software information System, Published in Artificial > Intelligence , 1996 > > [7] P. Devanbu , M. Jones , The use of description logics in KBSE systems. > Published in ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology , 1997 > > [8] Deborah L. McGuinness and Peter F. Patel-Schneider. ``Usability Issues in > Knowledge Representation Systems''. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth National > Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Madison, Wisconsin, July, 1998. This is > > an updated version of ``Usability Issues in Description Logic Systems'' > published in Proceedings of International Workshop on Description Logics, Gif > sur Yvette, (Paris), France, September, 1997. > > [9] Ronald J. Brachman, Alex Borgida, Deborah L. McGuinness, and Peter F. > Patel-Schneider. "Reducing" CLASSIC to Practice: Knowledge Representation > Theory Meets Reality. In Artificial Intelligence 114(1-2) pages 203-237, > October > > Ian Horrocks wrote: > > </pre> > <blockquote type="cite"> > <pre wrap="">On August 14, R.V.Guha writes: > </pre> > <blockquote type="cite"> > <pre wrap=""> > Much of the debate around layering of OWL on top of RDF and RDFs boils > down to whether the Semantic Web should treat classes and arc labels as > first class objects, about which arbitrary new kinds of statements can > be made. > > This is an important architectural choice which has to take into account > results from systems that have been built. Looking at what was learnt > from such systems would probably be productive ... > > RDF, which has been largely influenced by the experimental "scruffy" > side of AI has gone the route of many experimental AI systems (starting > from KRL, RLL, .... CycL) and incorporated these as first class objects. > In my experience, and the experience of the builders of these systems, > this has been a useful feature. Description Logics, which come from the > more "neat" side of AI chose not to allow this ... > > Clearly, not allowing this feature buys description logics something. > Ian, maybe you could explain exactly what this is and how it has been > found useful in large DL systems that have been built? > </pre> > </blockquote> > <pre wrap="">Work on DLs has resulted in the development of a family of logical > languages with precisely defined semantics and well understood > computational properties. They are (almost invariably) decidable > subsets of FOL and are closely related to propositional modal and > dynamic logics. For many of these languages, provably sound and > complete decision procedures have been devised. Several DL systems > have been based on optimised implementations of these algorithms, thus > providing users with reasoning services that are both reliable and > efficient. These systems are being used in a wide range of > applications, e.g., in medical-informatics, bio-informatics, chemical > engineering and geographical information systems. > > Ian > > </pre> > <blockquote type="cite"> > <pre wrap="">thanks, > > guha > > > > > </pre> > </blockquote> > </blockquote> > <pre wrap="">-- > Deborah L. McGuinness > Knowledge Systems Laboratory > Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241 > Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020 > email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dlm@ksl.stanford.edu">dlm@ksl.stanford.edu</a> > URL: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/index.html">http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/index.html</a> > (voice) 650 723 9770 (stanford fax) 650 725 5850 (computer fax) 801 705 > 0941 > > > </pre> > </blockquote> > </blockquote> > <br> > </body> > </html>
Received on Thursday, 15 August 2002 20:49:00 UTC