For full text search please use the '?' prefix. e.g. ? Onboarding

Owl-Full vs KIF

can you give examples of "upper ontology" or "foundational ontology" things that can't be expressed in OWL but can be expressed in KIF?

Upper ontologies, also known as foundational ontologies, aim to provide a high-level, abstract framework that can be used to describe a wide range of more specific domain ontologies. Knowledge Interchange Format (KIF) is more expressive than OWL (Web Ontology Language) and can handle certain concepts that OWL struggles with. Here are some examples of concepts that are difficult or impossible to express in OWL but can be expressed in KIF:

  1. Higher-Order Logic:

    • OWL Limitation: OWL is based on Description Logics, which are a subset of first-order logic. OWL cannot represent higher-order logic, such as properties of properties or classes of classes.
    • KIF Capability: KIF supports higher-order logic, allowing expressions like "A property of the property 'color' is that it can take multiple values" or "A class of classes."

  2. Meta-modeling:

    • OWL Limitation: OWL struggles with meta-modeling, where classes are treated as instances of other classes (also known as "punning").
    • KIF Capability: KIF can naturally express meta-level relationships, such as "The class 'Vehicle' is an instance of the meta-class 'Concept'."

  3. Complex Rules and Constraints:

    • OWL Limitation: OWL has limited expressiveness for complex rules and constraints. While SWRL (Semantic Web Rule Language) extends OWL, it is still not as expressive as some needs require.
    • KIF Capability: KIF can express complex rules and constraints without the limitations present in OWL. For example, conditional statements involving multiple variables and their relationships can be easily expressed in KIF.

  4. Non-monotonic Reasoning:

    • OWL Limitation: OWL assumes monotonic reasoning, meaning once something is true, it is always true. It cannot easily represent exceptions or default reasoning.
    • KIF Capability: KIF supports non-monotonic reasoning, allowing for expressions like "Typically, birds can fly, but penguins cannot."

  5. Quantification Over Properties:

    • OWL Limitation: OWL does not support quantification over properties, such as "For all properties, if they apply to A, they also apply to B."
    • KIF Capability: KIF can handle quantification over properties, allowing more complex and abstract relationships to be modeled.

  6. Arithmetic and Mathematical Functions:

    • OWL Limitation: OWL has limited support for arithmetic and other mathematical functions.
    • KIF Capability: KIF can express complex mathematical relationships and functions, such as "The sum of the values of properties X and Y must be greater than 10."

Example Expressions:

  1. Higher-Order Logic in KIF:

    (forall (?property ?class)
  (=> (and (property ?property)
           (class ?class))
      (exists (?meta-class)
        (and (instance ?property ?meta-class)
             (meta-class ?meta-class)))))

  2. Meta-modeling in KIF:

    (instance Vehicle Concept)

  3. Complex Rule in KIF:

    (forall (?x ?y)
  (=> (and (Person ?x)
           (Vehicle ?y)
           (owns ?x ?y))
      (responsible-for ?x ?y)))

  4. Non-monotonic Reasoning in KIF:

    (default (forall (?x)
  (=> (Bird ?x)
      (canFly ?x))))
(=> (Penguin ?x)
    (not (canFly ?x)))

  5. Quantification Over Properties in KIF:

    (forall (?A ?B)
  (=> (forall (?property)
        (=> (applies ?property ?A)
            (applies ?property ?B)))
      (similar ?A ?B)))

  6. Mathematical Function in KIF:

    (forall (?x ?y)
  (=> (and (valueOf ?x ?X)
           (valueOf ?y ?Y))
      (> (+ ?X ?Y) 10)))

These examples illustrate the greater flexibility and expressive power of KIF compared to OWL, making it more suitable for certain advanced ontological modeling tasks.

can't owl-full accomodate properties of properties, classes of classes, and classes as instances of other classes (aka metaclasses).

Yes, OWL Full can indeed accommodate properties of properties, classes of classes, and classes as instances of other classes (also known as metaclasses). OWL Full is a syntactic extension of OWL DL that does not impose any restrictions on the use of RDF constructs. Here’s a closer look at how OWL Full handles these concepts:

Properties of Properties

In OWL Full, you can treat properties as instances and define properties of properties. For example, you can state that a property hasColor has another property colorCategory.

:hasColor rdf:type rdf:Property .
:colorCategory rdf:type rdf:Property .
:hasColor :colorCategory :primaryColor .

Classes of Classes

OWL Full allows classes to be members of other classes. This can be used to create a hierarchy of metaclasses.

:Vehicle rdf:type rdfs:Class .
:Car rdf:type :Vehicle .
:Truck rdf:type :Vehicle .
:VehicleClass rdf:type rdfs:Class .
:Vehicle rdf:type :VehicleClass .

Classes as Instances of Other Classes (Metaclasses)

In OWL Full, you can make a class an instance of another class. This is useful for meta-modeling where you need to represent classes as instances.

:Person rdf:type rdfs:Class .
:Employee rdf:type :Person .
:PersonClass rdf:type rdfs:Class .
:Person rdf:type :PersonClass .

Limitations and Considerations

While OWL Full provides the flexibility to handle these constructs, it comes with certain trade-offs:

  1. Decidability: OWL Full is undecidable, meaning that reasoning tasks (like consistency checking or classification) might not terminate.
  2. Tool Support: Not all OWL tools fully support OWL Full due to its complexity and lack of computational guarantees.
  3. Reasoning Performance: Even if a tool supports OWL Full, reasoning might be significantly slower compared to OWL DL or OWL Lite.

Practical Implications

For many practical applications, the expressiveness of OWL Full might be necessary despite its limitations. However, if decidability and performance are critical, it might be beneficial to look into hybrid approaches or use OWL DL in combination with rule-based extensions like SWRL (Semantic Web Rule Language) for additional expressiveness.

Comparison to KIF

While OWL Full extends the capabilities of OWL DL significantly, KIF (Knowledge Interchange Format) still offers even greater expressiveness. KIF allows for arbitrary logical expressions, including those beyond first-order logic, such as higher-order logic and more complex constraints that OWL Full cannot express directly.

Conclusion

OWL Full can indeed handle properties of properties, classes of classes, and classes as instances of other classes, making it a powerful option for certain types of ontological modeling. However, it’s important to weigh its advantages against the potential downsides of undecidability and performance implications.

Backlinks