Re: incomplete translations
"Cheng Hian GOH" <chgoh@MIT.EDU>
Message-id: <9405201430.AA10002@e51-007-7.MIT.EDU>
To: gruber@hpp.stanford.edu, rice@hpp.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: incomplete translations
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 18 May 94 19:08:57 -0700.
<XLView.769315196.7590.gruber@hpp-ssc-1>
Cc: ontolingua@hpp.stanford.edu, chgoh@MIT.EDU
Date: Fri, 20 May 94 10:30:14 EDT
From: "Cheng Hian GOH" <chgoh@MIT.EDU>
Thank you both for your replies. I have deliberately waited a little longer
before responding in the hope that others will come forward to offer their
views.
The discussion has been very helpful to me. At least now I am better able to
appreciate the difficulties you are facing. The negative side is that given what
you have said, it looks like we will never be able to harness the full power of
the ontologies constructed should be stick to Loom as the underlying
representation system. I infer from the discussion that I have two alternatives:
1. Use the Ontolingua ontologies as a reference point, build my own Loom
versions to provide the functionalities that we will need (e.g., convert
between different units of measures) by encoding the knowledge in a
different way. (I haven't tried, but I presume that there is a way
to hack around the limitations.)
2. Abandon Loom altogether and look for a different representation system
which will work "seamlessly" with ontolingua (assuming one exists).
Unfortunately, we will really like to make use of Loom's classifier, so
the alternative better have similar facilities.
Here are two questions which I have for you:
1. Are there alternatives to the ones above that I have missed?
2. With respect to alternative 2, what might the KR system be? (Someone
mentioned Epkit(?). Will it help?)
Accept my gratitude for you time and effort in responding to my questions.
Best regards,
Cheng