[Person-ontology] KIF vs. CLIF

[Pat Hayes]

>  > > If you or someone would be so kind, it would be great to see an
>>  > example of using CLIF to model this: ...
>>
>>  ... [answers that Pat Hayes gave when I was about to send the
>>       translations in KIF below]
>
>The CLIF standard does not seem available anymore for free, even old versions.

We are exerting as much pressure as we can to ensure the ISO makes it 
freely available. Hopefully this will not take too long, but the ISO 
moves like a glacier.

>Is it available elsewhere than for about 150 USD at
>http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=39175
>
>Can't the LISP/KIF quoting mechanism used in my KIF translations below
>be used in IKL (I mean, with the same syntax)?

CLIF has string quoting, not quite the same as the KIF LISP quoting. 
(CLIF expressions are not defined to be LISP S-expressions, unlike 
KIF.) However, that really does denote a character string, not a 
"fact" or even a sentence.

>Same question for "=>
>and "<=". From the page on IKL, it seems that no.

No, CLIF does not use these 'symbols' for the connectives, because 
they completely destroy XML encodings, "=>" has to be written "=&gt;"

>
>
>>  * Alice is a Person
>
>- (Person Alice)
>- (rdf#type Alice Person)
>
>
>>  * A Person is a sub-class of DigitalSubject
>
>- (forall ((?p Person)) (DigitalSubject ?p))
>- (rdfs#subClassOf Person DigitalSubject)
>//note: since Pat Hayes used "(subClass Person DigitalSubject)"
>//      his subClass uses the convention commonly adopted by
>//      KIF authors to order parameters in binary relations;
>//      authors of graph-based notations generally adopt the
>//      opposite convention, the one used by Pat in
>//      "(Haircolor Alice Blonde)"

Hmm, I wasnt even aware I was using 'conventions' here. I followed 
the argument ordering used by RDFS for RDFS-type constructions like 
subClass.

>  > * A Person has exactly one hair color attribute
>
>- (forall ((?p Person))
>     (exists ?c1 (and (hairColor ?p ?c1)
>                      (forall (?c2) (=> (hairColor ?p ?c2) (= ?c1 ?c2))))))

FWIW, all this ?-prefixing of bound names is perfectly fine in CLIF, 
but (unlike in KIF) it isn't actually *required*.

>- (owl#functional_property personHairColor)
>
>
>>  * Alice has blonde hair
>
>- (personHairColor Alice blonde)
>
>
>>  * The "Alice has blonde hair" fact was asserted by the DMV
>
>(believer '(personHairColor Alice blonde) DMV)

Again, to emphasize: this says that the DMV 'believes' an 
S-expression (in KIF) or a character string (in CLIF). There is no 
KIF- or CLIF-sanctioned relationship between the string 
'(personHairColor Alice blonde)  (which is '(personHairColor Alice 
blonde)' in CLIF, note the closing quote) and the actual sentence
(personHairColor Alice blonde)

>
>
>>  * The "Alice has blonde hair" fact is asserted by the DMV
>>  to be true until the first of Jan 2010
>
>(believer '(until '(personHairColor Alice blonde) '1/01/2010) DMV)

And of course now someone has to axiomatize 'until'.

BTW, why quote the date in this formula?

Pat

>
>Philippe
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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