RE: Usefulness and Limitations of XML
Dear Chris,
> Have a decaf, Jim! :-) Mike's point, I think, is that current XML
> does not natively contain the constructs needed for an SUO (or for an
> interlingua) -- in particular, the standard apparatus of first-order
> logic. Hence, we need a language *anyway* with that
> expressive power.
> KIF appears to be the one, at least for an interlingua.
I think you are missing the point. XML is an alternative to BNF, not KIF.
What is proposed is to develop a "KIFML" if you will. This is certainly what
we are planning for EXIST. And I at least mean as well as and not instead
of.
Regards
Matthew
============================================
Matthew West
Asset Information Management
Shell Services International
H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929
E-mail: Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com
http://www.shellservices.com/
============================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Menzel [mailto:cmenzel@tamu.edu]
> Sent: 29 July 2000 00:00
> To: Fulton, Jim
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: Usefulness and Limitations of XML
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 01:13:54PM -0700, Fulton, Jim wrote:
> > ...Neither BNF nor XML have formal semantics themselves, ...
>
> BNF most definitely has a formal semantics (despite the fact
> that no one
> seems to have bothered to write one up explicitly :-). The
> semantics of
> a well-formed BNF is a grammar, i.e., a well-defined
> mathematical object
> consisting of sets of symbols, strings, string concatenation functions
> (production rules), etc. This can all be expressed very precisely.
> Something analogous had darn well better be true of XML.
>
> > ...or in and of themselves provide semantics for the
> languages defined
> > using them.
>
> Yes, of course, that is not the role of a BNF.
>
> > > XML schema are not scheduled for realease for many
> moonths to come,
> > > we cannot hold up our effort by waiting around. I stand
> by my view
> > > that we need to develop our own SUO language (or adopt or adapt an
> > > existing one). Separately form this, it is probably important to
> > > XMLify our language so it can easily be ported. I believe
> that this
> > > latter step is conceptualy trivial.
> > >
> > Wait a minute. We don't have time to work with a standard
> > language-system that has a reasonable chance of industrial
> use, but we
> > do have time to develop our own language!! Come on! Who's going to
> > use it? Is this just another academic game?
>
> Have a decaf, Jim! :-) Mike's point, I think, is that current XML
> does not natively contain the constructs needed for an SUO (or for an
> interlingua) -- in particular, the standard apparatus of first-order
> logic. Hence, we need a language *anyway* with that
> expressive power.
> KIF appears to be the one, at least for an interlingua. (Ontologies
> proper, perhaps even the SUO, should perhaps be expressed in a more
> tailored language -- see Pat's earlier note on this. I think there is
> still some unclarity about KIF's *exact* role vis-a-vis
> ontologies, the
> SUO, etc, but that's another discussion.) As soon as KIF's syntax has
> been fully determined -- and it seems to me very close to
> that -- an XML
> DTD can be defined, and folks can freely move between KIF and its XML
> representation.
>
> > Rather than waste our time with an utterly redundant language
> > description language, let's use an existing standard language
> > description language (playing the role of pilot project as
> we need to)
> > to define XKIF.
>
> Now I'm getting confused. Is it KIF or BNF that is the object of your
> scorn? What needs definition is the syntax of KIF (or some equally
> expressive language), whether by BNF, XML (?) or any other
> well-defined
> means. That has to be done before there can be an XKIF, right? Where
> exactly do you see the potential for wasted time? (I'm not
> denying the
> potential is there, I'm just trying to get clear on where you see it.)
> And what, exactly, are you proposing?
>
> > Not only will we have our ontologies, we'll have a standard way to
> > exchange information expressed in those ontologies.
>
> I'm not sure what you are claiming here. Perhaps you could clarify.
>
> Regards,
>
> -chris
>
> --
>
> Christopher Menzel # web: philebus.tamu.edu/~cmenzel
> Philosophy, Texas A&M University # net: chris.menzel@tamu.edu
> College Station, TX 77843-4237 # vox: (979) 845-8764
>