Actions

Ontolog Forum

RulesReasoningLP: Mini-series Launch Event - Thu 2013-10-24

Program: Ontology, Rules, and Logic Programming for Reasoning and Applications (RulesReasoningLP) mini-series of virtual panel sessions

Topic: RulesReasoningLP: Mini-series Launch Event - Survey and Introduction

Session Co-chairs: Dr. LeoObrst (Ontolog; MITRE) & Dr. BenjaminGrosof (Coherent Knowledge Systems) ... intro slides

  • Opening Remarks by Community & Technology Leaders and the Mini-series Co-champions: ... slides
    • Professor MichaelGruninger (IAOA; U of Toronto)
    • Professor MichaelKifer (SUNY, Stony Brook)
    • Dr. LeoraMorgenstern (SAIC)
    • Dr. VinayChaudhri (SRI)
    • Dr. HaroldBoley (RuleML; U of New Brunswick)
    • Dr. HensonGraves (Algos Associates; OMG)
    • Professor KenBaclawski (Northeastern U)
    • Dr. JohnSowa (VivoMind Research)
    • Mr. MikeDean (Raytheon-BBN)
    • Mr. PeterYim (Ontolog; CIM3)
  • Survey and Introduction to Key Concepts and the Technology Landscape
    • Dr. LeoObrst (MITRE; Ontolog) - "Survey: Logic, Logic Programming, Ontology, Rules" ... slides
    • Dr. BenjaminGrosof (Benjamin Grosof & Associates) - "Survey of Knowledge Representations for Rules and Ontologies" ... slides

Archives

Conference Call Details

  • Date: Thursday, 24-Oct-2013
  • Start Time: 9:30am PDT / 12:30pm EDT / 6:30pm CEST / 5:30pm BST / 16:30 UTC
  • Expected Call Duration: ~2.0 hours
  • Dial-in:
    • Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100 ... (long distance cost may apply)
      • ... [ backup nbr: (415) 671-4335 ]
      • when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184#
    • in view of recent reported skype connection issues, this is not recommended (especially for speakers) although it may still work for some ... Skype: joinconference (i.e. make a skype call to the contact with skypeID="joinconference") ... (generally free-of-charge, when connecting from your computer ... ref.)
      • when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184#
      • Unfamiliar with how to do this on Skype? ...
        • Add the contact "joinconference" to your skype contact list first. To participate in the teleconference, make a skype call to "joinconference", then open the dial pad (see platform-specific instructions below) and enter the Conference ID: 141184# when prompted.
      • Can't find Skype Dial pad? ...
        • for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it's under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"
        • for Linux Skype users: please note that the dial-pad is only available on v4.1 (or later; or on the earlier Skype versions 2.x,) if the dialpad button is not shown in the call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it. ... (ref.)
      • if you are using skype and the connection to "joinconference" is not holding up, try using (your favorite POTS or VoIP line, etc.) either your phone, skype-out or google-voice and call the US dial-in number: +1 (206) 402-0100 ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184#
    • (for phone dial-in) ... some local numbers may be available (in the US, Australia, Canada & UK) - see: http://instantteleseminar.com/Local/
  • Shared-screen support (VNC session), if applicable, will be started 5 minutes before the call at: http://vnc2.cim3.net:5800/
    • view-only password: "ontolog"
    • if you plan to be logging into this shared-screen option (which the speaker may be navigating), and you are not familiar with the process, please try to call in 5 minutes before the start of the session so that we can work out the connection logistics. Help on this will generally not be available once the presentation starts.
    • people behind corporate firewalls may have difficulty accessing this. If that is the case, please download the slides above (where applicable) and running them locally. The speaker(s) will prompt you to advance the slides during the talk.
  • In-session chat-room url: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontolog_20131024
    • instructions: once you got access to the page, click on the "settings" button, and identify yourself (by modifying the Name field from "anonymous" to your real name, like "JaneDoe").
    • You can indicate that you want to ask a question verbally by clicking on the "hand" button, and wait for the moderator to call on you; or, type and send your question into the chat window at the bottom of the screen.
    • thanks to the soaphub.org folks, one can now use a jabber/xmpp client (e.g. gtalk) to join this chatroom. Just add the room as a buddy - (in our case here) ontolog_20131024@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices!
  • Discussions and Q & A:
    • Nominally, when a presentation is in progress, the moderator will mute everyone, except for the speaker.
    • To un-mute, press "*7" ... To mute, press "*6" (please mute your phone, especially if you are in a noisy surrounding, or if you are introducing noise, echoes, etc. into the conference line.)
    • we will usually save all questions and discussions till after all presentations are through. You are encouraged to jot down questions onto the chat-area in the mean time (that way, they get documented; and you might even get some answers in the interim, through the chat.)
    • During the Q&A / discussion segment (when everyone is muted), If you want to speak or have questions or remarks to make, please raise your hand (virtually) by clicking on the "hand button" (lower right) on the chat session page. You may speak when acknowledged by the session moderator (again, press "*7" on your phone to un-mute). Test your voice and introduce yourself first before proceeding with your remarks, please. (Please remember to click on the "hand button" again (to lower your hand) and press "*6" on your phone to mute yourself after you are done speaking.)
  • RSVP to peter.yim@cim3.com appreciated, ... or simply just by adding yourself to the "Expected Attendee" list below (if you are a member of the team.)
  • Please note that this session may be recorded, and if so, the audio archive is expected to be made available as open content, along with the proceedings of the call to our community membership and the public at-large under our prevailing open IPR policy.

Attendees

Abstract

RulesReasoningLP: Mini-series Launch Event - Survey and Introduction ... intro slides

This is the first session of the RulesReasoningLP mini-series. This will be a series of virtual panel sessions, and the associated online discourse, co-championed by some members of the Ontolog community who value the importance of the subject matter and would want to bring together those who are knowledgeable or interested into a dialog. The mini-series program will cover the topics that encapsulates the ontology-driven applications that will generally fall under "Ontology, Rules, and Logic Programming for Reasoning and Applications."

The RulesReasoningLP mini-series program has come together through two open community brainstorm sessions, held on 2013.07.25 (covering mainly program content) and 2013.09.12 (covering mainly the organization and scheduling).

Joining us at our Launch Event today, are a number of community and technology leaders. They, along with our mini-series co-champions, will be delivering a range of opening remarks, right after our co-chairs' overview of the mini-series program. These remarks will, collectively provide diverse perspectives on why the theme chosen for this mini-series is important, and what we should try to achieve.

After the opening remarks, our co-chairs, Dr. Leo Obrst and Dr. Benjamin Grosof, will provide a survey of the subject matter and the scope of this mini-series. They will each take on some aspects outlined, and provide an introduction on key concepts and technologies involved, to prepare the participants for the exciting program content that will be rolled-out in the ensuing mini-series sessions.

See developing details at: RulesReasoningLP (homepage for this mini-series)

Agenda

RulesReasoningLP: Mini-series Launch Event - Survey and Introduction

Session Format: this is a virtual session conducted over an augmented conference call

Proceedings

Please refer to the above

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session

see raw transcript here.

(for better clarity, the version below is a re-organized and lightly edited chat-transcript.)

Participants are welcome to make light edits to their own contributions as they see fit.

-- begin in-session chat-transcript --

Chat transcript from room: ontolog_20131024

2013-10-24 GMT-08:00 [PDT]

[9:28] Peter P. Yim: Welcome to the

RulesReasoningLP: Mini-series Launch Event - Thu 2013-10-24

Topic: RulesReasoningLP: Mini-series Launch Event - Survey and Introduction )

Session Co-chairs: Dr. Leo Obrst (Ontolog; MITRE) & Dr. Benjamin Grosof (Coherent Knowledge Systems)

Opening Remarks by Community & Technology Leaders and the Mini-series Co-champions:

Survey and Introduction to Key Concepts and the Technology Landscape

  • Dr. Leo Obrst (MITRE; Ontolog) - "Survey: Logic, Logic Programming, Ontology, Rules"
  • Dr. Benjamin Grosof (Benjamin Grosof & Associates) - "Survey of Knowledge Representations for Rules and Ontologies"

Please refer to details on the session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_10_24

Attendees: AdrianGiurca, AlessandroProvetti, Alex Mirzaoff, Alex Shkotin, Ali Hashemi, Amanda Vizedom,

Benjamin Grosof, Beth Huffer, Brandon Whitehead, Brian Haugh, Christopher Spottiswoode, Dennis Pierson,

ElieAbiLahoud, Francesca Quattri, Francesca Quattri, Frank Chum, Frank Olken, Gary Gannon, GenZou,

Hamizah Hamka, Harold Boley, HassanAitKaci, Henson Graves, Joel Bender, Julien Corman, Karl Hebenstreit,

Ken Baclawski, Leo Obrst, Leo Obrst, Leora Morgenstern, Michael Barnett, Michael Grüninger, Michael Riben,

Mike Dean, Naicong Li, Oscar Hdez?, Paul Fodor, Pavithra Kenjige, Peter P. Yim, Richard Martin, Simon Spero,

SnezanaNikolic, Tara Athan, Todd Pehle, Todd Schneider, Tony Weida, Vinay Chaudhri, Weihong Song, anonymous, ...

proceedings:

[9:26] anonymous morphed into Brandon Whitehead

[9:29] anonymous morphed into Weihong Song

[9:31] Amanda Vizedom: Logistics note, confirming what Peter mentioned last week: you can skype-call

to "joinconference" even if it shows as "offline". I've just gotten on the call that way. Right

click on contact, choose "Call" then choose "Skype call."

[9:35] Ali Hashemi: joinconference is not online but invisible?

[9:36] Simon Spero: joinconference is hiding but working

[9:36] Amanda Vizedom: Ali, can you see my 12:31 comments above?

[9:40] Ali Hashemi: Just saw them, thanks.

[9:31] anonymous morphed into Christopher Spottiswoode

[9:32] anonymous1 morphed into AdrianGiurca

[9:32] anonymous morphed into Naicong Li

[9:32] anonymous1 morphed into HassanAitKaci

[9:33] anonymous morphed into Gary Gannon

[9:35] anonymous2 morphed into Leora Morgenstern

[9:35] anonymous morphed into Karl Hebenstreit

[9:35] anonymous morphed into Francesca Quattri

[9:37] anonymous morphed into Dennis Pierson

[9:38] anonymous morphed into Julien Corman

[9:40] anonymous2 morphed into Michael Riben

[9:40] anonymous1 morphed into Brian Haugh

[9:40] anonymous2 morphed into GenZou

[9:41] anonymous1 morphed into Pavithra Kenjige

[9:41] Pavithra Kenjige: Mute using *6

[9:45] Peter P. Yim: == Leo Obrst and Benjamin Grosof starts the session - please open the slides at:

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_10_24#nid3ZR3

[9:45] anonymous1 morphed into Beth Huffer

[9:46] Henson Graves: I cannot get to the web page any more under any browser

[9:49] Peter P. Yim: @Henson - the wiki session page should be working properly (I just checked from my own browser)

[9:49] Peter P. Yim: == Opening Remarks: see -

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_10_24#nid3ZQT

[11:55] from BenjaminGrosof's notes ...

notes on various opening remarks (2-min. each)

Michael Gruninger

- advocate of expressive, esp. FOL and CL

- need good support for automated reasoning to be really useful

- looking for guidance from reasoning community wrt tools for ontologies

to be evaluated and applied

- looking for test cases from the ontology community

- hope for insights on what is the appropriate ontology language to use

operationally for various applications, not just original development of

ontologies

Leora Morgenstern

- at Leidos, co. new name of split SAIC

- working on DARPA seedling on how to go from regulatory text to executable

rules

. looking at financial, incl. SEC, and other Patriot Act

- extract intermediate representations, incl.

. as rich an ontology as one can get

. dependency graph among rules

. semantic parsing and assignment for roles incl. permission/obligation

- an immediate issue is what representation to use

. RIF is clearly inadequate expressively

. exceptions are such a fundamental concept, incl. priorities

o need language like SILK -- ie Rulelog

Michael Kifer

- think the rules community has the best technology for KR, but somehow not

getting its due in the community

- RIF - systemic problems due to the charter could not produce the dialect

most useful for the rules community, had to focus on BLD which is basically

Datalog and not so useful

- later tried to produce more expressive dialects, which use Well Founded

Semantics, but it's hard to get attention for this

- now I and Benjamin are pushing Rulelog

- would like people to pay more attention to standards, and produce right

standards

- not clear that W3C is the right venue for this, since not clear

they are interested in continuing the RIF effort

- feel that the efforts overall are fractured, incl. there is an effort for

Answer Set Programs but they don't seem interested in non-ASP, only ASP

. need to overcome this fragmentation

Vinay Chaudhri

- (see his slide)

- separation between ontologies and rules is artificial

- focus should be on decidable reasoning

. folks in rule languages community have not focused so much on this,

but rather on expressiveness

. in DB systems, the performance guarantees are crucial

Harold Boley

- (see his slides)

Henson Graves

- (see his slide)

Ken Baclawski

- (see his slide)

John Sowa

- (see his slides, he mainly covered slide 2 verbally)

- recorded (started about 10:14a PDT)

- vagueness and uncertainty are important

. contrast that with very clean model-theoretic kinds of approaches

Mike Dean

- delighted to see this cooperation b/ ontology and rules community,

which have largely been disjoint despite many common goals

Peter Yim

- (see his slide)

- feel this miniseries is a very important next step

[9:53] anonymous1 morphed into Francesca Quattri

[9:53] Peter P. Yim: @speakers - those who do not have slides for their opening remarks are encouraged

to capture their thoughts into this chat-room (or send me their slide(s) which I can add back to the archives)

[9:56] Peter P. Yim: @Leo, @Banjamin - (please remind the participants) we have 46 people on the

phone-bridge, but only 38 in the chat ... please join us in the chat-room if you aren't already ...

ref. details at top of session page

[9:56] anonymous1 morphed into Paul Fodor

[10:01] anonymous morphed into SnezanaNikolic

[9:59] Frank Olken: Leora Morgenstern, Contact me about an upcoming workshop in DC Nov. 14-15 on

information sharing for financial regulation. I think you would find it interesting.

[10:02] List of members: AdrianGiurca, Alex Shkotin, Ali Hashemi, Amanda Vizedom, Benjamin Grosof,

Beth Huffer, Brandon Whitehead, Brian Haugh, Christopher Spottiswoode, Dennis Pierson, ElieAbiLahoud,

Francesca Quattri, Frank Olken, Gary Gannon, GenZou, Harold Boley, HassanAitKaci, Henson Graves,

Julien Corman, Karl Hebenstreit, Ken Baclawski, Leo Obrst, Leo Obrst, Leora Morgenstern, Michael Barnett,

Michael Grüninger, Michael Riben, Mike Dean, Naicong Li, Paul Fodor, Peter P. Yim, Richard Martin, Simon Spero,

SnezanaNikolic, Tara Athan, Todd Pehle, Todd Schneider, Tony Weida, Weihong Song

[10:05] anonymous morphed into Frank Chum

[10:03] Leora Morgenstern: @VinayChaudhri: The reason we need a rule language and not just

ontologies, is that ontologies aren't sufficiently expressive.

[10:03] Leora Morgenstern: We need rules with n-ary predicates, for examples.

[10:03] Leora Morgenstern: We need to represent exceptions and default reasoning.

[10:04] Amanda Vizedom: +1 to remarks about artificiality of separating "rules" from "ontology." IMHO

this creates artificial barriers and obstacles for projects using a representation that separates these.

[10:04] Leora Morgenstern: We can't do all that we need in an ontology.

[10:04] Leora Morgenstern: However, an ontology is an important component in our system.

[10:04] Simon Spero: @LeoraMorgenstern: that's crazy talk. Next you'll want default reasoning or something :-P

[10:04] Leora Morgenstern: @Simon, indeed I do want default reasoning. And yes, crazy talk is what I do.

[10:05] Amanda Vizedom: @LeoraMorgenstern, I think the point is that there is no reason to think of

the rules as something apart from the ontology. That separation is what gives us insufficiently

expressive ontologies. But many ontologies/ representations include rules as an essential part of the ontology.

[10:05] Frank Olken: Leora Morgenstern, I agree with the need for rules with n-ary predicates.

[10:07] Leora Morgenstern: @Amanda, yes, some rules, but not all kinds of rules. Rules with n-ary

predicates? default rules?

[10:07] Todd Schneider: Leora Morgenstern, Frank, The issue is the expressivity of representation

language. Some are less expressive than others.

[10:07] Leo Obrst: The separation of ontology from rules is probably an artifact of semantic web

technologies, i.e., DL-based OWL. Other ontology languages make no such separation.

[10:07] Leora Morgenstern: @Todd, frankly, we need more than FOL.

[10:08] Amanda Vizedom: @LeoraMorgenstern, that will vary with expressiveness of language. And

different use cases will require different expressiveness.

[10:10] Leora Morgenstern: @Amanda, certainly, if you expand your definition of ontology to include

rules with n-ary predicates, default rules, modal operators (deontic logic), etc, then sure. But

then we're just redefining the word, no?

[10:10] Todd Schneider: Leora Morgenstern, for your problem space, probably. The question(s) that

should be asked is what problems are you trying to solve. This should then provide requirements for

the needed expressivity and the language needed (and any supplements).

[10:12] Amanda Vizedom: @Todd, I think that's exactly right. What I took Vinay to be addressing is

this (relatively recent) phenomenon in which people discover that limited-expressiveness languages,

not supporting rules, are insufficient for their needs, and then create or adopt a *separate*,

added-on language for rules. It seems much more sensible instead to move to a higher-expressiveness,

rule-inclusive representation -- of which there are many, already developed and understood.

[10:14] Amanda Vizedom: @LeoraMorgenstern, for many of us who have been working in ontologies for

many years, we are experiencing a redefinition in the other direction. This idea of ontologies as

not including rules is the new one, and when it first started popping up in literature/ conferences,

etc., it was quite puzzling.

[10:15] Leora Morgenstern: @Amanda, I understand your point. But I think you can see where I'm coming

from. It's a complex domain, and we need a very expressive representation, and I don't know of any

ontology that gives what I need. If you can point one out, I'll be happy to look at it,.

[10:21] Amanda Vizedom: @LeoraMorgenstern, I definitely get it. And I started my ontology career

working with Cyc / CycL, so was spoiled at the outset with respect to expressivity and the use of

rules within ontology. I hope that in the process of this miniseries, we see more richness of

options!

[10:15] Beth Huffer: It might help if we are clear about the difference between the language, and the

model that is the basis for assigning meanings to terms in the language. If you think the "ontology"

doesn't include rules, that might be because you are thinking of the ontology as the model. But the

language can surely include terms and functions and operators as needed for describing the domain.

In that sense, there's no need to have separate languages for the "ontology" and the rules. I'm

putting "ontology" in quotes because we are pretty fast and loose in the semantic tech world about

what an ontology is.

[10:19] Todd Schneider: Beth Huffer, an ontology is a model (of some sort).

[10:13] Todd Schneider: Amanda, the largest constraint (from a production viewpoint) is the viability

of the infrastructure to support the choice.

[10:16] Amanda Vizedom: Todd, that's very true. The best-tooled, best-tested, higher-expressiveness

systems are also mostly proprietary. Currently, most(?) or at least many projects require or prefer

an open standard representation langugage, and we lag badly in the support for the

higher-expressiveness options there.

[10:20] Todd Schneider: Amanda, Yes. Any large customer usually prefers or requires products that

comply with [open] standards.

[10:13] Simon Spero: Anyone here who knows anything about Typed Feature Structures and unification?

-P

[10:16] anonymous morphed into Hamizah Hamka

[10:18] Francesca Quattri: @Harold. I am looking at your slides (no. 5). A question about the concept

of "reaction rules". Did I get it right when you suggested that we could reuse the same ontological

rules from an ontology to another in no random order, but according to the subsumed examples that

you proposed? e.g. spatio ontology subsumes to temporal ontology, action ont. to event ont. etc.?

Thank you for the explanation.

[10:41] Harold Boley: @Francesca, the "Reaction Rules" slide gives the big picture of Reaction

RuleML. In the third row, spatio and temporal ontologies are often used together, as are action and

event ontologies. But generally, (Reaction) RuleML provides a 'pluggable' architecture where you can

modularly combine various ontologies. We are currently re-specifying Reaction RuleML 1.0 from XSD in

Relax NG. This would allow MYNG-style customization of Reaction RuleML as we already do for

Deliberation RuleML: http://wiki.ruleml.org/index.php/MYNG

[11:03] Francesca Quattri: @Harold: Among the good things that are in the wiki (shared link) is the

fact that it contains examples (ref. "Example Instance Files for RuleML 1.0"). It helps to frame the

final intent into real world applications.

[10:21] Peter P. Yim: == Leo Obrst presenting: "Survey: Logic, Logic Programming, Ontology, Rules"

[10:24] Simon Spero: Program = algorithm + data . Algorithm = logic + control

. Program = logic + control + data . Ontology = program - control?

[10:31] Francesca Quattri: got the def. of reaction rules. thank you Leo

[10:34] Simon Spero: Prolog is a high level WAM assembler language

[11:24] Simon Spero: WAM - A tutorial reconstruction - http://wambook.sourceforge.net/

[10:38] Benjamin Grosof: What Leo is referring to with LP is often the LP family of KRs, incl.

extensions for skolemization, defeasibility, Rulelog, etc.

[11:55] from BenjaminGrosof's notes ...

notes on survey by Leo (see his slide deck)

(Benjamin's note to self:

nice/cute ex. of semantics of material implication and contraposition:

"if pigs can fly ..."" on slide 7)

[10:42] anonymous morphed into Oscar

[10:47] Peter P. Yim: == Benjamin Grosof presenting: ""Survey of Knowledge Representations for Rules and Ontologies "

[10:55] Amanda Vizedom: Regarding @BenjaminGrosof's slide 3 point 3: Agreed, but a notable point:

anyone who takes even an Introduction to "Symbolic Logic" or "Formal Logic" course (usually taught

in a Philosophy or Mathematics department, but often taken much more broadly) in college *does*

learn the rules and key ingredients here. Test: if your Intro to Logic class had variables and

Quantifiers, you learned this. :-)

[10:56] Simon Spero: Imperial College still has mandatory Prolog (sequenced after the first Logic course)

[10:56] Hamizah Hamka: Apologize team of experts. Need to leave too soon for its too late here. Hope

to participate in future event. Have a fruitful discussion.

[10:58] Peter P. Yim: @HamizahHamka - thank you for participating ... all the way from Malaysia

[10:57] Amanda Vizedom: +1 Slide 4: viewing as "rules" or "ontological statements" is largely a

matter of *view* and *use*. In fact, expressive KRs include "syntactic sugar" to allow moving

between the views for many kinds of information.

[11:00] Amanda Vizedom: Big point in support of the "rules" & "ontological knowledge" overlap: The

fundamental ontological relationship of "subclass" or "subtype" is a (usually hard-coded) expression

of a rule pattern: "A is a subclass of B" means: "If x is an instance of A then x is also an

instance of B." It's that fundamental.

[11:00] anonymous morphed into AlessandroProvetti

[11:06] Simon Spero: I'm not sure that the OWL choice of OWA (with no Clark completion) keeps it in

the mainstream of LP?

[11:08] Simon Spero: ( http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~klc/neg.html )

[11:55] from BenjaminGrosof's notes ...

notes on survey by Benjamin (see his slide deck)

Cyc is much closer to Rulelog (vs. to FOL or to LP)

[11:12] HassanAitKaci: Before Hilog: lambda-Prolog, and its later incarnation Teyjus (

http://teyjus.cs.umn.edu/ )

[11:21] Harold Boley: Dale Miller's et al.'s lambda-Prolog actually covers a (second-order) fragment

of higher-order logics, not just higher-order syntax: http://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/~dale/lProlog/

[11:17] Peter P. Yim: == Q&A and open discussion ... please raise your hand, get called upon by the

chair, test your voice, before making your remark

[11:19] HassanAitKaci: [regarding how to be heard on the voice bridge, to make a remark] I'm on

Skype and unmuted ... I don't understand ... [ppy: you will press "*7" on the skype "dialpad" to

un-mute (it maybe hidden under the "Call" dropdown menu) ... after speaking, press "*6" to go back

mute again.]

[11:55] from BenjaminGrosof's notes ...

notes on remarks from HassanAitKaci

Hassan: presentations very good, but bit biased in that ignored some

important relevant work

- in particular: lambda calculus, where a function is described as a rule

- that was the basis for the first work on higher-order programming

. Gérard Huet. Résolution d'équations dans les langages d'ordre 1,2,…,ω. Thèse de doctorat d'état, Université Paris 7, 1976

. Dale Miller and Gopalan Nadathur on lambda-Prolog

. Teyjus.cs.umn.edu system work at U Minn by Gopalan Nadathur -- see that for references

- key to cover in miniseries: operational, implementation,

pragmatically how run, how efficient

. Prolog via WAM

. lambda-calculus also implemented via an abstract-machine mechanism

- work on constraint logic programming

. gives Prolog technology much bigger power, opens the LP paradigm to anything

that one can represent as a constraint solving process, incl.

probabilistic or fuzzy or whatever

- there's a new generation that's not very educated in logic programming

in general

. we need to make it learnable without undue effort

Benjamin in response to Hassan: agree

- also very important is modern LP implementationally are tabling techniques,

a kind of caching of work on subgoals and their results

[11:39] HassanAitKaci: http://cs.brown.edu/people/pvh/CPL/Papers/v1/hak.pdf

[11:17] Harold Boley: You can practically explore higher-order Hornlog syntax as developed for Hilog

( http://www.cs.sunysb.edu/~warren/xsbbook/node45.html ) and Relfun (

http://www.cs.unb.ca/~boley/FLP/cs6905FLP.pdf ) using the online Relfun interpreter:

http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/~vega/relfun-cgi/cgi-bin/rfi.cgi

[11:25] Alex Mirzaoff: Can either of the presenters comment on the application of tmeporal

descriptors as terms? in logic programs?

[11:25] Leo Obrst: As mentioned by Hassan, efficiency is important, and such an area as knowledge

compilation addresses how to "compile" very expressive knowledge into more efficient runtime

representation.

[11:28] Simon Spero: "With imperative programming, you have to tell the computer how to do what you

want. With declarative programming, you have to trick the computer in to doing what you want."

[11:55] from BenjaminGrosof's notes ...

notes on verbal Q from Peter P. Yim wrt LeoObrst's presentation, slide 26

Q. Peter asked what Leo meant when he said things like substructural logics and

probabilistic logics would not be include - whether he meant these are not in scope

in this mini-series

A. Leo responded that he just meant that these things will not be included in this

particular presentation (and slide deck)

[11:28] Joel Bender: Is there a description of RuleML and its component "ontologies" that describes

it concepts in a way that is similar to FOAF or RDFS?

[11:55] from BenjaminGrosof's notes ...

notes on JoelBender's verbal Q about description of RuleML <--> RDF ontologies as in foaf or whatever

Answer by Harold and Benjamin:

- there are relationships in terms of data models,

. Harold will post some links to chat; also it's important

- it's also important to understand at logical/semantic level, incl. what's

essential in syntax

[11:33] Harold Boley: Data models of XML (positional) and RDF (slotted) can be reconciled:

http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/~boley/xmlrdf.html

[11:37] Harold Boley: RuleML uses XML in the object-oriented manner enabled by this reconciliation:

Distinction of capitalized Nodes ('types') and lower-cased edge ('role') XML elmenets.

[11:42] Harold Boley: The RuleML Normalizer RON can automatically generate object-oriented stripes/slots:

http://wiki.ruleml.org/index.php/Specification_of_Deliberation_RuleML_1.0#XSLT-Based_Normalizer

[11:29] Amanda Vizedom: [ref. PeterYim's request to participants to morphed into their real names for

attribution purposes] [I just briefly mis-heard "attribution" as "retribution" :-\!]

[11:33] Peter P. Yim: @Amanda - very funny! :)

[11:34] Amanda Vizedom: @Peter :-)

[11:30] Alex Mirzaoff: Can either of the presenters comment on the application of tmeporal

descriptors as terms? in logic programs? dynamic ontologies?

[11:55] from BenjaminGrosof's notes ...

notes on AlexMirzaoff's verba Q about how things change in time

- A by Leo: can use ontology of time or temporal logic

- A by Benjamin: temporal reasoning is representable within expressive general

logics such as CL and Rulelog;

. practically, defeasibility is often very important to do

temporal reasoning efficiently and tersely, particularly

to represent causality,

incl. projection forward in time or backward in time

(as in abduction and inductive learning)

[11:38] Amanda Vizedom: Last year's "Best Paper Award" recipient at the the STIDS conference

presented a particular ontological representation of time that supported a variety of reasoning

approaches that have been often addressed in ways that have some built-in problems...

[11:41] Amanda Vizedom: @AlexMirzaoff: see Shrag "Best-practice..." at

http://stids.c4i.gmu.edu/STIDS2012/agenda2012.php

[11:40] Alex Mirzaoff: thanks Amanda, I will check that reference

[11:39] Peter P. Yim: great kick-off, Leo & Benjamin!

[11:39] Peter P. Yim: join us again next week 2013_10_31 - Thursday: RulesReasoningLP mini-series

session-02: Concepts and Foundations of Rules and Ontologies: Logic Programs, Classical Logic, and

Semantic Web - I - Co-chairs: Leo Obrst & Harold Boley - watch out for announcement on the mailing

list and the developing session page at:

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_10_31

[11:39] Francesca Quattri: Thank you All!

[11:39] Alex Shkotin: Good bye

[11:39] Leo Obrst: Thanks, all!

[11:40] Simon Spero: Good session.

[11:42] Alex Mirzaoff: Amanda - got it thanks

[11:45] Amanda Vizedom: yw!

[11:46] Amanda Vizedom: Thanks all for this kick-off. Looking forward to the mini-series, and glad

these matters are getting some deserved and needed attention.

[11:40] Peter P. Yim: -- session ended: 11:30am PDT --

-- end of in-session chat-transcript --

  • Further Question & Remarks - please post them to the [ ontolog-forum ] listserv
    • if you are already subscribed, post to <ontolog-forum [at] ontolog.cim3.net>
    • (in case you aren't already a member) do consider joining the ONTOLOG community and be subscribed to the [ ontolog-forum ] listserv, where general ontology-related topics are discussed among the Ontolog community members. Please refer to Ontolog membership details at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
      • kindly email <peter.yim@cim3.com> if you have any question.

Additional Resources

For the record ...

How To Join (while the session is in progress)



Retrieved from "https://ontologforum.com/index.php?title=ConferenceCall_2013_10_24&oldid=3017"