[Person-ontology] D7 - Which languages are better than OWL?

[Gian Piero Zarri]

    Dear Philippe,

Philippe Martin wrote:

>Gian,
>
>
>  
>
>>In reality, you retract then this "argument" at the end of your mail 
>>but, please, suppress "gpzarri" from the above sentence.
>>    
>>
>
>I assume that by "retract" you refer to my "specialization" (it is not a
>"correction", just a new statement specializing yours). Anyway, I replaced 
>"most practical_applications do not require a language as restricted as OWL"
>by "most non-trivial practical applications cannot be carried on correctly 
>    making use of such a limited language like OWL".
>

    Thank you

>
>
>  
>
>>>- ("in 2007, no W3C_language provides a way to specify in a concept
>>>    definition that some relations are mandatory"
>>>      
>>>
>> Why in a "concept definition" ? There are many other Knowledge 
>>Representation structures (e.g., NKRL template) besides the usual (and 
>>trivial) "concepts". I could suggest then to 
>>... change "... in a concept definition" into "... in a single definition".
>>    
>>
>
>I made the two changes relative to "concept definition", although 
>"concept definition" seemed a sufficient argument. 
>

   
    Speaking only and always of "concepts" seems too restrictive to me. 
Anyway, thank you for the change.

>
>
>
>  
>
>>>      argument:
>>>        - ("in 2007, no W3C_language provides a way to specify that some relations are 
>>>            contemporaneous"
>>>              objection: - "RDF permits to use meta-statements"(pm)
>>>                         - "meta-statements permit to specify that some relations are
>>>                            contemporaneous"(pm)
>>>          )(gpZarri (pm))
>>>        - ("a good_general_KRL should provide a way to specify that some relations are
>>>            contemporaneous"
>>>              specialization: "a good_general_KRL should permit to use meta-statements"(pm)
>>>          )(gpZarri);
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>    I find all these sentences at least incomplete. First of all, I 
>>don't find there my starting point for this discussion: "No W3C language 
>>provides a way to describe correctly and completely simple 'situations' 
>>(sorry, John), facts, events etc. that, like "Peter gave a book to 
>>Mary", are intrinsically n-ary". Secondly if, with your 
>>"meta-statements" sentences, you refer to proposals like that of making 
>>use of modal logics (sic!) to try to transform artificially into "n-ary" 
>>something that has been created as "binary", I don't agree at all. Make 
>>use of binary concepts to describe static notions (as "mammals" and 
>>"elephants" and the relationships among them) and use (in general) n-ary 
>>structures when you must describe dynamic situations, events, actions or 
>>whatever.
>>    
>>
>
>Then, please suggest "complete sentences"
>- without using the term "situation" given the discussion showed that this
>  term is ambiguous and is not really needed; you once used the term of
>  "n-ary representations" when faced with objections related to your use
>  of the term "situation" but I am not sure this solves the problem;
>- without using the term "binary relations" since you admitted yourself that 
>  binary relations were not THE problem (and they are used in NKRL),
>- preferably without using the term "n-ary" (to avoid ambiguities, I strived 
>  to avoid it in my reformulations; these formulations incomplete but 
>  they are a beginning).
>That way, hopefully, the statements will get to the point, will less lead to 
>misinterpretations, and will less give rise to recurring discussions,
>which is precise the point of making this semi-formal summary.
>

    It is difficult to speak about something that is "n-ary" without 
using the word "n-ary". I could say: "No W3C language provides a way to 
describe simply, correctly and completely real-world facts, events, 
actions etc. that, like "Peter gave a book to Mary", have an arity 
greater than 2". If you don't like "arity", it will then be necessary to 
return to terms like "semantic predicate", "role" etc.  With respect now 
to "situation", it was well evident that Barwise & Perry had nothing to 
do with the discussion in progress, but anyway...


>
>Regarding "meta-statements" (or "contexts", or "boxes"), please read 
>John Sowa's last email and then please suggest a better term or expression. 
>They are not necessarily linked to modal logics. I do not see their 
>use in transforming "artificially into 'n-ary' something that has been 
>created as "binary".
>

    I apologize. I have apparently unduly associated with you a Harold 
Boley's paper on the Relationships Between Logic Programming and RDF, 
where he proposes (among other things) something in the modal logic 
style to upgrade RDF and that was presented at a Conference in Melbourne.

>
>
>  
>
>>    On the contrary, I can agree with the following paragraphs. Only a 
>>point: I don't think that "expert systems are better than OWL". I think 
>>only that, from a "CONCRETE application of the Knowledge Representation 
>>techniques" point of view, the situation beginning of the '80 is not so 
>>different from the actual one.
>>    
>>
>
>I have now removed the argument 
>"expert systems of the seventies were more interesting than OWL"(gpZarri)
>from the semi-formal summary. 
>

    Thank you once again.

    Best regards,


    G.P. Zarri

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://idcommons.net/pipermail/person-ontology/attachments/20080108/468cb2f1/attachment.htm