[Person-ontology] KIF vs. CLIF
Paul Trevithick
paul at socialphysics.org
Mon Oct 22 11:29:37 PDT 2007
Pat,
Thanks very much. Very lucid. Helped a lot.
The fog is starting to lift on a feasible migration path from HOWL (aka
higgins.owl) to something like CLIF while still using the same Higgins
Identity Attribute Service API.
-Paul
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes at ihmc.us]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 12:14 PM
> To: Paul Trevithick
> Cc: person-ontology at idcommons.net; Schoening, James R Mr CIV USA AMC
> Subject: RE: [Person-ontology] KIF vs. CLIF
>
> >If you or someone would be so kind, it would be great to see an example
> of
> >using CLIF to model this:
> >
> >Ontology
> >* Alice is a Person
> >* A Person is a reusable specialization [e.g. a sub-class] of
> DigitalSubject
>
> (I have no idea what "reusable specialization"
> means, so will axiomatize subclass.)
>
> >* A Person has exactly one hair color attribute
>
> I take this to be synonymous with having exactly one hair color.
>
> >
> >Instance
> >* Alice has blonde hair
>
> * (Person Alice)
>
> * (subClass Person DigitalSubject)
>
> with the added background axiom to define
> 'subclass'. (Note, this defines an extensional
> class notion as in OWL-DL. For the intensional
> notion used in RDFS, weaken the 'iff' to 'if'.)
>
> (forall (x y)(iff (subClass x y)(forall (z)(if (y z)(x z))) ))
>
> * (forall (x)(if (Person x)(hasJustOne x Haircolor)))
>
> using the background axiom to define 'hasJustOne':
>
> (forall (thing relation)(iff (hasJustOne thing thing relation)
> (exists (z)(and (relation thing z)
>
> (forall (u)(if (relation thing u)(= u z)))
> ))
> ))
>
> * (Haircolor Alice Blonde)
>
> Up to here it is easy, but the next two cannot be
> naturally stated in a first-order framework like
> CL. Or at any rate, not in a way which connects a
> 'fact' with the sentence that asserts that fact.
> First-order semantics provides no way to make
> assertions about propositions or sentences of the
> logic itself. However, a CLIF extension we
> recently developed, called IKL, is designed to be
> able to make such assertions. IKL extends CLIF by
> adding the construct (that <sentence>) to name
> the proposition expressed by the inner sentence.
> This makes it easy to express your propositions,
> but the cost being that nobody has yet designed,
> let alone implemented, an IKL reasoning engine.
>
> >* The "Alice has blonde hair" fact was asserted by the Dept of Motor
> >Vehicles
>
> (AssertedBy DMV (that (Haircolor Alice Blonde)))
>
> >* The "Alice has blonde hair" fact is asserted by the DMV to be true
> until
> >the first of Jan 2010
>
> (AssertedBy DMV (that (holdsUntil (xsd:date
> "01012010") (that (Haircolor Alice Blonde)) )))
>
> This last can be done many different ways. Ive
> chosen what is probably the simplest, which would
> need to be backed up with a temporal ontology
> defining 'holdsUntil'. This is routine stuff,
> however.
>
> Pat
>
> >
> >-Paul
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: person-ontology-bounces at idcommons.net [mailto:person-ontology-
> >> bounces at idcommons.net] On Behalf Of Pat Hayes
> >> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 10:39 AM
> >> To: Schoening, James R Mr CIV USA AMC
> >> Cc: person-ontology at idcommons.net
> >> Subject: Re: [Person-ontology] KIF vs. CLIF
> >>
> >> >Pat,
> >> >
> >> > How easy would it be to transcribe KIF into CLIF?
> >>
> >> The full grammar of KIF includes many constructions that are rarely,
> >> if ever, used (certainly not by SUMO) so let me distinguish 'full
> >> KIF' from 'everyday KIF'. Transcribing Full KIF into CLIF is possible
> >> but awkward in places. Transcribing everyday KIF into CLIF is easy,
> >> in most cases just a matter of minor syntactic substitutions. The
> >> only slighly nontrivial issue is the need to re-write the KIF
> >> 'definition' patterns.
> >> >
> >> > Are we really talking about transcribing a given ontology from
> >> >KIF to CLIF, or could a translator be created to convert any KIF
> >> >ontology into CLIF?
> >>
> >> A language translator for any ontology. Any everyday ontology and
> >> most of the Full (To do a complete job on the Full would require
> >> writing a lot of applied KIF ontologies into CLIF using the same
> >> identifiers, which hasn't been done yet.) CLIF was deliberately
> >> designed to be a kind of 'son of KIF'.
> >>
> >> > How much is each in use today? Which is gaining more
> momentum?
> >>
> >> CLIF (CL generally) is new, so has little established use so far, but
> >> this will likely change. Many government agencies in particular are
> > > very keen to use ISO standards where possible, so there will be
> >> pressure to use CL rather than KIF in funded projects. Also, frankly,
> >> CL is just better thought through and more developed than KIF, has a
> >> fully stated model theory, better worked out proof theory, and is
> >> much more web-compatible than KIF (for example, a URI can be used
> >> directly as a CLIF identifier, which is impossible in KIF.)
> >>
> >> Pat
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for your continued invaluable insight.
> >> >
> >> >Jim Schoening
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes at ihmc.us]
> >> >Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 11:02 AM
> >> >To: Schoening, James R Mr CIV USA AMC
> >> >Cc: person-ontology at idcommons.net
> >> >Subject: Re: [Person-ontology] KIF
> >> >
> >> >>All,
> >> >>
> >> >> Higgins Project leaders are interested in learning more about
> >> >KIF,
> >> >>about applications and usage practicies for it. (SUMO is written in
> >> >>KIF.) They are concerned with the cost and schedule of migrating to
> >> >>KIF from their current customized version of OWL.
> >> >>
> >> >> Could we share our knowledge and opinions on KIF. Thanks.
> >> >
> >> >First suggestion is to use CLIF, which is a KIF-like 'official'
> dialect
> >> >of the new ISO 24707 Common Logic standard. CLIF is simpler than KIF
> and
> >> >much more Web-compatible, as well as having achieved the
> standardization
> >> >status which KIF never achieved. It is easy to transcribe KIF into
> CLIF.
> >> >There is also a standard embedding of OWL/RDF into CLIF which could
> be
> >> >easily mechanized, though I don't know if anyone has written a
> >> >mechanical translator yet. Common Logic also has an XML syntax (XCL)
> >> >which might be useful.
> >> >
> >> >Pat
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>Jim Schoening
> >> >>_______________________________________________
> >> >>Person-ontology mailing list
> >> >>Person-ontology at idcommons.net
> >> >>http://idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/person-ontology
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
> >> >40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> >> >Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> >> >FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
> >> >phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
> >> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> >> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> >> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
> >> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Person-ontology mailing list
> >> Person-ontology at idcommons.net
> >> http://idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/person-ontology
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
More information about the Person-ontology
mailing list