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

15

John Sowa claims "There are many reasoning tools that are more expressive, more powerful, and easier to use than Protege." But what?

John Sowa's statement likely refers to the limitations of Protégé, which is a widely used tool for creating and managing ontologies. Protégé is excellent for building OWL (Web Ontology Language) ontologies but has limitations in expressiveness and reasoning compared to more advanced systems. While he doesn't mention specific alternatives in this quote, we can infer that Sowa is pointing to reasoning tools or approaches that offer more flexibility or power in certain contexts.

Here are some reasoning tools or approaches that may fit the criteria Sowa alludes to:

1. Cyc

  • Expressiveness: Cyc is an ontology-based AI that supports a wide range of reasoning, including commonsense reasoning. It contains a vast knowledge base and can reason using both declarative and procedural knowledge.
  • Power: It goes beyond what OWL can express, handling richer forms of logic such as first-order logic (FOL), temporal reasoning, and more.
  • Ease of Use: Although it has a steeper learning curve than Protégé, Cyc's reasoning capabilities allow for more complex and nuanced queries.

2. Conceptual Graphs (CGs)

  • Expressiveness: Sowa himself developed conceptual graphs, a formalism that maps natural language to logic in a more intuitive way. CGs can represent knowledge that involves temporal, modal, and other more complex relationships.
  • Power: CGs are based on a subset of first-order logic but can be extended to higher-order logics. They are more flexible than OWL in terms of the types of relationships they can model.
  • Ease of Use: CGs provide a more natural representation for many types of reasoning, especially in semantic networks and knowledge graphs.

3. Reasoners for First-Order Logic

  • Expressiveness: Tools such as Vampire, Prover9, and E offer reasoning capabilities for first-order logic, which is more expressive than the description logic that OWL is based on.
  • Power: First-order logic allows for more complex relationships and quantification over variables that OWL cannot represent directly.
  • Ease of Use: These reasoners can handle more complex problems, but they might not be as easy to use as Protégé for beginners. However, they allow for solving problems that require more sophisticated logical reasoning.

4. Logic Programming Languages (e.g., Prolog)

  • Expressiveness: Prolog and similar languages can handle a broader range of logic than description logics. They can express recursive relationships and can be extended with constraints and other features.
  • Power: Prolog reasoners allow for nonmonotonic reasoning (i.e., reasoning that can retract conclusions when new information is available), which is not available in many OWL reasoners.
  • Ease of Use: For users familiar with logic programming, Prolog can be more intuitive and flexible compared to OWL-based reasoning in Protégé.

5. Datalog Engines (e.g., RDFox, VLog)

  • Expressiveness: Datalog can handle a broader set of inferences compared to OWL, particularly in the realm of rules and recursion.
  • Power: These engines are optimized for efficient large-scale reasoning, particularly with datasets in the billions of triples.
  • Ease of Use: They can be more powerful in certain domains but may require more technical expertise than using Protégé with a reasoner like HermiT or Pellet.

6. Common Logic (CL)

  • Expressiveness: Common Logic is an ISO standard for a family of logic-based languages that can express a wide variety of logical constructs, including higher-order logics.
  • Power: It's a superset of first-order logic and allows for interoperability between different logical systems. It’s far more expressive than OWL.
  • Ease of Use: It provides a framework for multiple logics, making it flexible but possibly more complex to work with.

7. Frame-Based Systems (e.g., OpenCyc, Jena with Reasoners)

  • Expressiveness: Frame-based systems are often more intuitive for knowledge representation than description logics and can offer richer types of inferences.
  • Power: They are particularly well-suited for integrating reasoning with machine learning and natural language processing.
  • Ease of Use: These systems can offer higher-level abstractions for reasoning but may be more complex than OWL for simple applications.

8. Rule-Based Systems (e.g., Drools, Jess)

  • Expressiveness: Rule-based systems allow for complex, conditional logic that can handle nonmonotonic reasoning.
  • Power: Such systems are often more flexible in business logic and can implement a wide range of reasoning strategies.
  • Ease of Use: For those familiar with production rules, these tools can be more intuitive than OWL-based systems.

9. Graph Databases with Integrated Reasoning (e.g., Neo4j with APOC)

  • Expressiveness: Graph databases can represent relationships that are more complex than typical OWL axioms and are often used for knowledge graphs and semantic reasoning.
  • Power: These databases allow for complex querying and reasoning over large-scale, interconnected data.
  • Ease of Use: Tools like Cypher in Neo4j can be easier to use for graph-based reasoning than setting up ontologies in Protégé.

Conclusion:

Sowa’s critique may stem from the fact that OWL and Protégé, while user-friendly and effective for certain types of reasoning, are limited in terms of expressiveness compared to tools that handle first-order logic, nonmonotonic reasoning, and more complex forms of knowledge representation. Tools like Cyc, Prolog, and first-order logic reasoners provide broader reasoning capabilities but often require more expertise to use effectively.