Jack,
Head down on a number of drafts but there is one point on FOL that I
think is important:
Jack Park wrote:
Useful thread, this.
<snip>
I believe TMs can hold graph structures fully equivalent to those of
any CG, but TMs have no standard inferencing model. CGs do: some
FOL engine that can infer things by using predicate calculus.
I suspect that any part of CGs which a TM cannot express are related
to their missing FOL engine. But to me, normal conversion direction
would go from TMs toward logic processing - not the other way around -
so these lacks should present no real problems in any case. The TM
application software would simply have to take up the slack if a chart
become fodder for somehting besides FOL.
Topic maps not "missing" an FOL engine. Unlike CGs, you get a choice.
The Topic Maps Reference Model (TMRM) allows you to disclose whatever
inferencing that you wish to use, FOL if that is your choice but others
as well. In other words, the TMRM allows your choice of inferencing
systems or engines and for that choice and its rules to be disclosed.
Some people will find FOL useful, others will prefer other systems or
perhaps even wish to be deliberately illogical. There is no basis on
which to assume any inferencing system will be deemed equally adequate
by all users. So long as the system and it rules are disclosed, the TMRM
is perfectly content.
Note that your choice of inferencing, under the TMRM, can be part of the
topic map, so there is no need for a separate step.
Hope you are having a great day!
Patrick
--
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
Patrick.Durusau-Axl5Fd8bLORg9hUCZPvPmw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!
|
