Re: [ontolog] ontology tools and an ontology repository?

[MDaconta@aol.com]

Hi Leo,

I'll jump in here as I don't agree with where this logic is heading...
(though I agree with some of it)

In a message dated 11/19/2002 2:34:10 PM US Mountain Standard Time, lobrst@mitre.org writes:

> 1) You need an expressive language for ontologies, the more expressive in general
> the better (with some qualification about expressive limits and tractability;
> Description Logics as a KR thread has tried to find a tractable sub-First Order
> Logic that is as close to FOL as you can get).


I don't believe the statement, "the more expressive the better" is the right
criteria for the language.  Why? Because we don't yet know useful expression
from useless expression.  Languages and systems are created all the time
with features that are rarely or never used due to poor design, poor 
implementation, or they solve the wrong problem.

So, I would say:  "Expressive enough to achieve known benefits."

> 2) It's useful to have multiple targeted syntaxes, depending on your needs. In
> OWL, we have an XML target (because the W3C and we build on XML and RDF/S and
> these languages are increasingly popular). I think Common Logic (ISO-KIF?) has
> multiple syntaxes too, no?


While you can support other syntaxes, you MUST support the #1 syntax
which is XML.  So, I would say, XML first and others as you have time or
community interest.

Regards,

 - Mike
----------------------------------------------------
Michael C. Daconta
Director, Web & Technology Services
www.mcbrad.com