Re: [cuo-wg] Executable English vs FOL for all domains run time interope

["Adrian Walker" <adriandwalker@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Cory --

Wow, some good questions within ten minutes of posting!  (:-)

I'll try to answer them one by one.

Is EE...

Well, EE is the language, and Internet Business Logic is the thing that computes with it.

So, is Internet Business Logic a

- Proprietary Product?

only in the sense that the Wiki we are using for CDSI is also a pp.  That is, anyone on the web can write (and run) their own material by pointing a browser to the shared area, and the material is then open to anyone on the Web.  As befits a Wiki, shared use is free.

- Standard?

No, but  I've suggested to W3C that it would speed up adoption of the Semantic Web.  Please see
  www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/19

- Established open approach in some community?

- Emerging open approach in some community?

 

Early days yet.  Maybe it will in time become an established, semi-open approach in this community.

- Prototype?

It's at Beta.

- Idea?

 Implemented system, live online.  The first publication of the ideas that led to the system was back in 1981 (!).  There are over 20 papers since then, some of them in refereed publications, such as

  "Backchain Iteration: Towards a Practical Inference Method that is Simple
  Enough to be Proved Terminating, Sound and Complete". Journal of Automated Reasoning, 11:1-22

I suggest we be clear about the above as we submit these options and that only non-proprietary approaches are eligible for consideration.

Hmm.  Would that, in your view, also rule out the use of the current  CDSI Wiki -- as Peter Yim has suggested?
 

Also, it sounds a lot like the "business semantics of business rules" standard of OMG (http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?dtc/2006-08-05)- which takes a very structured English approach.  Do you know what the relationship is?

Glad you asked.  There is a  Business Rules and OMG SBVR Presentation   --
www.reengineeringllc.com/Business_Rules_and_OMG_SBVR_Presentation.pdf .  
(Jim -- would that  presentation be of interest for a conference call?)

In particular, EE differs from other approaches in that the vocabulary is open, and there is no external dictionary construction required, yet the English semantics are strict.  The English syntax is also mostly open.  This means that one can freely use things like government acronyms, jargon syntax, and so on.  There's a trade off, of course, that one can evaluate by using the system.

(As you may know, brittleness, and related requirements for dictionary and grammar maintenance appear to have kept most natural language query systems away from major commercial and government use.)

Thanks!

 
Thanks for the good questions!

Adrian Walker
Reengineering
Phone: USA 860 830 2085

Cory Casanave

---

From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Walker
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 1:57 PM
To: Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6; common upper ontology working group
Subject: [cuo-wg] Executable English vs FOL for all domains run timeinteroperability

Hi Jim --

This is to try to address a little better how Executable English (EE) may help to answer your requirement for 2N interoperability over all compliant domains.

The EE approach for all compliant domains would be to find a canonical, pivot  body of knowledge so as to get to 2N, and to represent the knowledge in EE rather than FOL. (But see below for the automatic, bi-directional mapping between EE and FOL).

For example, in

  www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/OntologyInterop2.agent

a canonical set of units is chosen.  Then, anyone using other units must use the suggested adapters to map to the canonical units.  This is 2N.  The agent computes the adapters that are needed.

As another example,  in
 
   www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/SemanticResolution1.agent

anyone wishing to do business must have an adapter (2N again) that  maps his or her internal terminology to a more general, canonical "upper"  set of terms.  So, in this example, the pivot is a taxonomic hierarchy.

EE is automatically mapped into and out of an FOL-like notation for inference.  But that's done inside a black box called Internet Business Logic, which also does the inference, and provides the English explanations of what's going on.   It gets scalability by automatically generating and running networked SQL "under the covers". 

So, as an analogy, EE is to FOL as Java is to Assembly Language.  In this analogy, the Internet Business Logic system corresponds to a Java compiler.

Hope this makes sense.  If folks have time to run some examples**, comments would be much appreciated.  You can write and run your own examples too.

                                              Thanks,   -- Adrian

**  Just point a browser to www.reengineeringllc.com and click on Internet Business Logic.  The system works better with Mozilla or Firefox than with IE.  For IE, the "browsers" page has some suggested settings.

Adrian Walker
Reengineering
Phone: USA 860 830 2085

 _________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
To Post: mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
Community Wiki: http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG

 _________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
To Post: mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG    (01)