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