- From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@PioneerCA.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:43:32 -0800
- To: "Semantic Web at W3C" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "OWL at W3C" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
- Cc: "John De Oliveira" <johndcyc@gmail.com>, "Rob McCool" <robm@robm.com>
The "final" version of the comparison between RDF, OWL, mKR is "published" on my web site http://mKRmKE.org/kb/spo.rdf http://mKRmKE.org/kb/spo.owl http://mKRmKE.org/kb/spo.mkr There are no big surprises here -- just a more thorough mapping. I have specifically named the four statements of greatest interest s1:: subject property value. s2:: subject property object. s2a:: individual type class. s2b:: species subClassOf genus. and have carefully mapped all of the concepts Thing, Nothing, Resource Class, Property type, subClassOf List, Set, oneOf, Seq, Bag, Alt to existent, nonexistent entity, attribute, binary relation isu, iss, iss*, has, rel list, set, enum What may surprise you is the scope of spo.mkr. I decided to outline the full TABULA RASA context (but with no details on many concepts, e.g., actions). You should note that s1, s2, s2a, s2b are a very small part of the big picture. I promise a thorough treatment of spo.cyc in the near future. Separating the contexts which Cyc has merged together will be the most difficult part of my task. But now that I have easy access to the Cyc Upper Ontology http://mKRmKE.net/knowledge/cyc/UpperOntology.mkr the work should go fairly quickly. Dick McCullough knowledge := man do identify od existent done; knowledge haspart proposition list; http://mKRmKE.org/
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 14:46:07 UTC