> "CO" == Chimezie Ogbuji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Part of the problem with DL reasoners and their scalability is,
>> indeed, their relative immaturity. But, part of the problem is
>> because that is just the way that universe is built. Ain't much
>> that can be done about this.
> I disagree and my point is that the universe you speak of is framed by a
> specific reasoning algorithm.
[VK] I believe this is not true. It's been a while since I took courses in
Theoretical CS, but complexity classes are not based on a given technology. In
general these complexity classes
Well, as I am speaking at the limit of my knowledge I cannot be sure
about this, but I strongly suspect that what you say is wrong.
Any computational system can only be guaranteed to work well in all
circumstances if it is of very low expressivity. If a system
implements expressivity equivalen
> Chris is right, but the IS itself has no view on the matter. it does,
> I believe, play some tricks inside making instances classes to do the
> reasoning. What the user sees are instances. When we use the IS to
> classify proteins, we have a class "p53" and we translate all the
> genes in a gen
> CO> Once again: pure production/rule-oriented systems *are* built to
> CO> scale well in *all* circumstances (this is the primary advantage
> CO> they have over DL reasoners - i.e., reasoners tuned specifically
> CO> to DL semantics). This distinction is critical: not every
> CO> re
> "CO" == Chimezie Ogbuji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> ABox is more complex than TBox, although I believe the difference
>> is not that profound (ie they are both really complex). For a DL
>> as expressive as that which OWL is based on, the complexities are
>> always really bad. In
Thanks, Phil.This all makes perfect sense.Please see below for a brief clarification.Cheers,BillOn Sep 15, 2006, at 11:13 AM, Phillip Lord wrote: "WB" == William Bug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: WB> CLASSes represent UNIVERSALs or TYPEs. The TBox is the set of WB> CLASSes and the ASSERTIONs asso
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Phillip Lord wrote:
"WB" == William Bug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
WB> CLASSes represent UNIVERSALs or TYPEs. The TBox is the set of
WB> CLASSes and the ASSERTIONs associated with CLASSes.
WB> INSTANCEs represent EXISTENTIALs or INDIVIDUALs instantiating a
> "WB" == William Bug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
WB> CLASSes represent UNIVERSALs or TYPEs. The TBox is the set of
WB> CLASSes and the ASSERTIONs associated with CLASSes.
WB> INSTANCEs represent EXISTENTIALs or INDIVIDUALs instantiating a
WB> CLASS in the real world. The ABox i
Hi All,Just as a clarification for the less informed - myself included - we're discussing the subtle and extremely difficult aspects of creating knowledge maps/annotation repositories/KBs/KR repositories (what have you) ultimately capable of supporting reasoning (simple classification through more
> "KV" == Kashyap, Vipul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
KV> Obviously, if mapping into instances gives better performance
KV> for a given set of inferences, that might be the basis of
KV> choosing the instance-of relationship. Towards this end I have
KV> the following questions for Phil
Chris is right, but the IS itself has no view on the matter. it does,
I believe, play some tricks inside making instances classes to do the
reasoning. What the user sees are instances. When we use the IS to
classify proteins, we have a class "p53" and we translate all the
genes in a genome in
> With InstanceStore, the genes and gene products are treated as owl
> individuals - belonging to the ABox. However, the ontologically
> correct representation recognises that p53 is the name of a universal
> that is instantiated in trillions of cells, and not the name of an
> individual region o
13 matches
Mail list logo
