Re: D7 - Which languages are better than OWL?
Gian Piero and Philippe,
I agree with the following point:
GPZ> ... that Mary is the subject of an action of giving but, in
> order to "understand" really this elementary event, you must
> necessarily merge again the single binary relationships in a
> global unit, (an n-ary one), and to work on this in a global way.
I realize that it is common with conceptual graphs to represent
the roles associated with verbs by binary relations, but for
reasoning, it is essential to recognize that some binary relations
are optional and others are obligatory (i.e., not detachable).
With CGs and other versions of Common Logic, it is possible to
move freely between one representation and another by means of
definitions, and CGIF (like CLIF and XCL) does allow n-ary
relations when appropriate. A general purpose KRL should allow
that option.
PM> "no W3C_language is a good_general_KRL"
Although I agree that a "good general KRL" must be able to
support n-ary relations, it would be politically more
acceptable to make a positive statement about the W3C.
For example, say that the current W3C languages are useful for
some purposes. But to provide a growth path to the future,
it's essential to support a transition to more general KRLs for
the future Semantic Web.
Common Logic, for example, is upward compatible with the W3C
languages, it supports URIs, it is an ISO standard, and it also
has an XML-based dialect called XCL.
John Sowa