University, Protege Team
you for your note.
I know some
about the history of the framed based KIF (Knowledge Interchange Format) and
that Protege started as a KIF editor. I am "almost" right about this,
As RDF began
to be funded by DARPA and marketed by W3C there was a decision to evolve Protege
towards RDF and then OWL. Yes?
occurred, did the frame based approach and the OWL approach develop as two
different developments? Or were the two approaches mixed together in some
does Racer (the inference engine) act on frame based ontology (I guess it is
proper to call this OKBC - Open Knowledge Base Connectivity - rather then
KIF. ) Or is KIF not related to OKBC?
did not occur to me that there are two Protege packages - Protege-Frames
I worked with
a group who were trying to get Protege-OWL to work at Customs. I was
trying to integrate semantic extraction technology with well specified concept
representations, but there was just too little understanding of the big
picture. And there was WAY too much Java and programming language stuff
and jargon. Too many moving targets.
was the result of the struggle. In the RoadMap we advanced some
suggestions that (we felt) were more consistent with how the human
brain/perception system works.
ways from the (at least partially incorrect) notion that logic is "how thought
follows". The RoadMap was NOT done as a business process but as a
collaboration between a number of technologists, cognitive scientists,
linguists, and mathematicians.
is in applied semiotics, computational linguistics, semantic extraction,
artificial neural networks, quantum theory, general systems theory, mathematics,
cognitive neuroscience, and theoretical immunology... I say this not
to be egotistical but to remind others that I have a great number of scholarship
fields to follow - other than IT, Java, and this constantly changing set of
"standards". This is why I have called for some type of completion
and stabilization of an editor/visualizer that works to represent "sets of
I feel that
frames, as Schank described early on, is a really good way to represent a
concept, as having slots and fillers. However, I have been critical of the
logical entailment that folks (Hendler, Berners-Lee and others) are attempting
to put into the W3C work.
is based on extensive backgrounds in cognitive neuroscience, and quantum
theories of mental event formation (Pribram, Edelman, Penrose, Rosen etc).
I know also
of four or five "sets of concepts" representation that is build into software,
Knowledge Foundations Inc, Applied technical Systems Inc, Readware, WebMind and
a few others. I invented my own called Orbs (Ontology referential
base)... all of these have some right to be called "ontology" but
certainly are not OWL.
I see the OWL
projects fail because what is attempted might not be doable using RDF plus logic
organized as "theories". If any proof that ontology with theory can work
one would expect to see this from Cyc Corp, but we do not see this - at least
not in the general B-2-B case. But OWL seems mandated by government
work, and many of us simply cannot understand why the continued support.
abuse the group so much, but the W3C approach just seems wrong - whereas the
frame based approach seems proper and doable.
I hope you can answer in the affirmative is"
Is Protege-frames completely
separate from the OWL and RDF standard. Is this true?
is very important to me personally, and I am so excited to maybe have
stumbled into a way to get leverage on what I see as wrong and what i see as
right about the approaches to ontological modeling.
The Protege platform provides two
different user interfaces to support modeling of either frame-based or OWL
ontologies. We split our mailing lists in two - one called
protege-discussion for questions regarding frame-based ontology development
and one called protege-owl for questions regarding OWL ontology
development. People who are developing frame-based ontologies are not
necessarily interested in OWL and the reverse is also true. We have more
information on our Web site about the differences between Protege-Frames and
seems that Marisa's question is more appropriate for the protege-discussion
mailing list since she indicated that she is building a non-OWL
Paul S Prueitt wrote:
How does one determine that it is not a Protege OWL
These appear to be Protege questions and not Protege-OWL
questions. Please repost your questions to the protege-discussion
On 21 Dec 2005, at 18:35, Marisa Santos Amaro wrote:
Two questions from a typical Protégé beginner:
1) How can I define the transitivity of
properties/slots in a non-OWL Protégé ontology ?
I have A, B, C and D as instances of the same class. S1 is a slot
that means "is superior to". If A is superior to B, B is superior to C
and C is superior to D, I would like to code S1 just one time for each
two instances. As I don´t know how to define transitive properties, I
had to include several S1 relations for each instance: (A-S1-B, A-S1-C,
A-S1-D, B-S1-C, B-S1-D etc) instead of just (A-S1-B, B-S1-C and C-S1-D).
2) Is it possible make a Protégé query based
on attributes values of selected class instances ? For
example, in the wine ontology, I´d like to list the value
slot of each instance
of wine class that is produced by Courbans winery. Is it possible
by means a program using Jena ?
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html