Re: KIF: Re: SUO: RE: SUMO axiomatization
Chris,
Ok, maybe I've got it wrong - can you provide an example of a definition
that is useful in the context of SUMO, and which is possible with row
variables, but not without?
Adam
At 01:57 PM 12/20/2001 -0600, Chris Menzel wrote:
>Adam wrote:
> > The point about language complexity is not really debatable. I think it
> > makes the syntax more complex which I consider simply equivalent to a
> > factual statement that it requires more clauses in the BNF grammar. You
> > could interpret "more complex" differently. You could say (as Bill and
> > Chris have) that "more complex" refers to the axioms that are needed to
> > define particular concepts in the ontology. They've shown good
> examples of
> > how row variables make for more compact definitions.
>
>That doesn't put the point strongly enough, Adam. Row variables don't
>simply make for more compact definitions. More typically, they make
>certain *possible* that are impossible without them. They wouldn't be
>terribly interesting if they simply saved a few bytes. Row variables make
>KIF strictly more expressive than first-order.
>
> > Are they simpler or easier to understand? It depends on what community
> > you're addressing, and comes down to personal preference, not a statement
> > of right or wrong.
>
>That would be so only if the added mechanisms (as in the case of sorts)
>added no expressive power -- and even then it might not be a matter of
>preference, as certain constructs might make for better computational
>efficiency. Either way, it seems to me the issue isn't personal
>preference, but rather whether the constructs in question are useful for
>building and/or reasoning upon ontologies.
>
>-chris
>
>--
>
> /\ ASCII ribbon | Chris Menzel -- http://philebus.tamu.edu/~cmenzel
> \/ campaign | Philosophy Dept, Texas A&M University
> /\ against | College Station, TX 77843-4237
>/ \ HTML email | voice: 979.845-5660 fax: 979.845.0458
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571