[Person-ontology] KIF vs. CLIF
Aldo Gangemi
aldo.gangemi at istc.cnr.it
Sun Oct 28 11:18:37 PDT 2007
Nice exercise Pat, you did your homework :)
BTW, Paul, what's the use of assuming that persons are digital
subjects? It is funny to notice that the beautiful Alice results to
be a digital subject, that she (she?) will probably change her
haircolor to black next week, and -most important- that I fell in
love with a digital subject.
This subclass choice shows a typical "anti-pattern": representing
properties of objects as properties of subjects.
It's great talking about one thousand varieties of logic to be used
for encoding person-related knowledge, but I think it's even greater
clarifying the rationale of what we are encoding. Just to avoid
starting 'yet another' SUO (gasp!).
Tip for this list: ontology design is now a bit more focused than 5
years ago: we need to clearly state the tasks (e.g. in the form of
"competency questions") that motivate the creation of a person
ontology, and then verify what modeling solutions (e.g. in the form
of patterns) can help satisfying that task.
If the task is uttermost general, e.g. "being reusable by any
ontology that talks about persons whatsoever", ok, then let's try to
solve that (although it can be very difficult, because we'd need a
very large set of competency questions from existing projects).
Cheers
Aldo
PS For the sake of presentation, I am co-founder of the Laboratory
for Applied Ontology (http://www.loa-cnr.it), and work in the area of
ontology engineering and design since 1992. I am currently working on
patterns and collaboration in ontology design. See e.g. the NeOn
project: http://www.neon-project.org. Concerning persons, I am
working in an e-Gov project that also includes modeling persons in
that context for the typical tasks of e-Gov service cooperation.
Il giorno 22/ott/07, alle ore 18:14, Pat Hayes ha scritto:
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Person-ontology mailing list
> Person-ontology at idcommons.net
> http://idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/person-ontology
_____________________________________
Aldo Gangemi
Senior Researcher
Laboratory for Applied Ontology
Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technology
National Research Council (ISTC-CNR)
Via Nomentana 56, 00161, Roma, Italy
Tel: +390644161535
Fax: +390644161513
aldo.gangemi at istc.cnr.it
http://www.loa-cnr.it/gangemi.html
icq# 108370336
skype aldogangemi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://idcommons.net/pipermail/person-ontology/attachments/20071028/525de173/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Person-ontology
mailing list