SUO: Re: Enhancing Data Interoperability with Ontologies...
Bob,
The controlled NLs are the human interface.
The internal notation is Common Logic, which
includes predicate calculus, KIF, and CGs for
full expressive power, RDF and OWL for subsets,
and many other languages including variations
of SQL and UML for related tools and facilities.
BP> Can you recommend any reading that would elaborate
> on this view of controlled languages. I can imagine
> a layered approach in which the proliferation of
> controlled languages within domains recreates the
> problems of coordination among those domains. But
> perhaps the problem would be more tractable.
Rolf Schwitter has gathered together many references
to controlled NLs and related topics:
http://www.ics.mq.edu.au/~rolfs/controlled-natural-languages/
Following is a paper by Rolf on using controlled English
as a formal specification language:
http://www.ics.mq.edu.au/~rolfs/papers/nlis2002.pdf
Following is a paper by Philippe Martin that compares various
forms, including his version of Formalized English:
http://meganesia.int.gu.edu.au/~phmartin/WebKB/doc/conventions.html
Following is another paper on using Controlled English for
knowledge representation:
http://www.clp.ox.ac.uk/people/staff/pulman/pdfpapers/cl_kr.pdf
Following is a paper I wrote on using controlled NLs in
a Flexible Modular Framework:
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/arch.htm
Summary: Logic is the unifying internal form, and controlled
NLs are the humanly readable form. Diagrams of various kinds,
such as UML, topic maps, etc., are supplementary representations
that can help people visualize complex relationships.
John