Ontologies are descriptions of types of entities and how they relate to one another and the properties and capacities of the entities themselves. Essentially, they are about structure, properties and capabilities. In simulation models using JESS or other declarative tools, the rules allow and constrain the development of process. The processes can be sequences of actions by instances described in an ontology or they can change relationships and structures. If the relationships and structures do not change, then the ontology constrains the declarative processes. If the processes -- the behaviour of individual entities and interactions among them -- change the structure of the system, then the ontology and declarative processes co-evolve.
One would not expect to be able to import ontologies into JESS because that would amount to importing the system structure into system processes. The two are by no means independent but neither are they the same. As for RACER in relation to JESS, again the functions are different. RACER ensures that the ontology is sound and consistent relative to its underlying logic. JESS will have an underlying logic and programs that do not crash will be sound and consistent relative to that logic. As far as I know, however, no one has identified the axioms and rules of inference of that logic. There have been declarative languages implemented to be sound and consistent with respect to one or another known modal logic. In such cases we have the logic of the structure and the logic of the processes. I don't think they are likely to be the same and I am not aware of any arguments that they should (or even could) be. Perhaps others on this list know better? Scott ps: I don't think this is in conflict with Martijn's posting. On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 23:10 +0200, Gerhard Austaller wrote: > Hi > > I somehow completely lose overview on "semantic" technologies... > > Does anybody know or is willing to explain where the > difference/overlap... between "expert systems" like JESS/CLIPS and > ontologies (with reasoners) is. Because of the rules it appears that > expert systems are more powerful but maybe there is something I can > express with ontologies that I can not within expert systems. > > Another question is about RACER PRO. The query language NRQL looks like > a rule language in JESS. Is it RACER PRO's NRQL as powerful as the rules > in JESS? Maybe anybody knows both systems and could give a hint or a > link. > > And last, does anybody know a way to import a OWL ontology into JESS. > Most solutions I know lose almost all restrictions. Is this an > implementation issue or is it because JESS (experts system in general) > are not to be used with "ontologies". > > Thank you very much! > Gerhard > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]' > in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the list > (use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]' in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the list (use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
