Re: SUO: RE: Criteria that an ontology must satisfy
Robert-
Thanks for your message.
>Bottom line: in IFF I do not need a sorted extension of KIF for this kind of
>type restriction.
I tend to agree.
Let me give you a quick heads-up on where my own thinking is on
'sorts'. I had been developing quite an elaborate proposal for the
sorted extension to new KIF, when Chris recently sent me a draft of a
proposal for a 'structural ontology' which is all about classes and
class heirarchies, but expressed in unsorted KIF. What we now both
see is that we had been developing the same idea in different
vocabularies, and that there are three issues best kept distinct:
(1) the description of a suitably elaborate class heirarchy
(2) relating that heirarchy to the notion of predicate-application in
the language itself
(3) marking the syntax of the langauge so that class-membership
inferences can be efficiently checked by a parser without invoking
general inference mechanisms.
Both (1) and (2) can be done in an unsorted language; making it
'sorted' amounts to (3); but it is the same heirarchy.
We are trying to get this written up in a coherent form soon.
Pat Hayes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes