SUO: Re: Enhancing Data Interoperability with Ontologies...

["Yang Zhanmin" <rintec@sohu.com>]

> I was trying to make the following points:
> 
>   1. If it is possible to define a transformation
>      from one format to another (datatype, database,
>      language, or whatever), then that definition
>      can be specified in logic (which may have to
>      be more expressive than just OWL).

The concept of a transformation definition may be more general than that of logic here.  I think there may be some exceptions that some transformation definition can not be expressed with some kind logic.

> 
>   2. And it is possible to define a subset of
>      any natural language that maps to and from
>      that version of logic.

Here I agree with you!  And I have some immature idea that we may invent some recursive logic to approach to the whole set of any natural language fulfilling some precision requirement?

> 
> For examples of controlled English and its mapping
> to logic, see my paper on CLCE:
> 
>     http://www.jfsowa.com/clce/specs.htm
>     Common Logic Controlled English
> 
> A similar kind of controlled subset can be
> defined for any natural language.  Then the
> underlying logic can be used as the common
> semantic definition for the executable form.
> 
> John sowa

Regards

Yang Zhanmin