Hi. I had recently taken a look at some sort of computer-related
logic system known as the Knowledge Interchange Format, or KIF
(http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/dpans.html). To learn about this or
similar kinds of systems would, I suppose, help me to understand some
of the most difficult aspects of mathematics. However, is there any
way that KIF could be represented as a set of functions in Common LISP
(which it is, after all, based on) that manipulate the forms, so that
I could get a better understanding of KIF?
Or should I study the "Infix" KIF discussed in chapter 11? But the
infix-notation system grammar shown on the page seems to be poorly
edited, and several things make no sense.
daniel mcgrath
--
Daniel Gerard McGrath, a/k/a "Govende":
for e-mail replace "invalid" with "com"
Developmentally disabled;
has Autism (Pervasive Developmental Disorder),
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder,
& periodic bouts of depression.
[This signature is under construction.]
Daniel al-Autistiqui wrote:
> Hi. I had recently taken a look at some sort of computer-related
> logic system known as the Knowledge Interchange Format, or KIF
> (http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/dpans.html). To learn about this or
> similar kinds of systems would, I suppose, help me to understand some
> of the most difficult aspects of mathematics. However, is there any
> way that KIF could be represented as a set of functions in Common LISP
> (which it is, after all, based on) that manipulate the forms, so that
> I could get a better understanding of KIF?
>
> Or should I study the "Infix" KIF discussed in chapter 11? But the
> infix-notation system grammar shown on the page seems to be poorly
> edited, and several things make no sense.
>
> daniel mcgrath
I've used KIF, but only with Prolog.
First off, it won't help you understand a lot of mathematics. KIF is based
on logic, which is just a subset of maths.
I think Lisp could deal with KIF, but I recommend trying out searching sets
of data with Prolog, first. Gnu Prolog is a good, free program.
Finally, KIF is not an actual thing - it's just a format for exchanging sets
of logical data. First, you need to find some data to exchange. :-)
Oh, and read 'The Kif of Death" which you can find on http:/
scholar.google.com - this will tell you a lot about the format, as it
criticises it heavily. :-)
Cheers,
Jeremy.
In <··································@4ax.com> Daniel al-Autistiqui <·········@hotmail.invalid> writes:
> Hi. I had recently taken a look at some sort of computer-related
> logic system known as the Knowledge Interchange Format, or KIF
> (http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/dpans.html). To learn about this or
> similar kinds of systems would, I suppose, help me to understand some
> of the most difficult aspects of mathematics.
Hi daniel,
I suspect probably not, but that of course depends on what you mean by
"the most difficult aspects of mathematics". If you want to learn
about mathematical logic or logic as a basis for mathematics, KIF is
not a very good starting point, try a text on mathematical logic.
But if you already know logic and are interested logical languages for
knowledge representation (KR) that can be processed by machines, then
KIF is a good starting point. If so, then I suggest you start by
reading http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/Hypertext/kif-manual.html to
get a better idea about what it's all about. (This is about an earlier
version of KIF, but includes far more explanantion than the document
you referenced.)
As far as its status goes, it seems KIF has not been standardised.
Some work to improve it and connect it with other KR techniques such
as Conceptual Graphs and the Standard Upper Ontology was begun around
2000, reported at http://suo.ieee.org/suo-kif/msg00023.html .
Further progress which created something called Common Logic (CL)
that is a synthesis of KIF, CGs and predicate logic is reported at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Apr/0061.html .
CL was recently submitted as an ISO draft standard. You can find
out all about CL at http://cl.tamu.edu/ .
> However, is there any
> way that KIF could be represented as a set of functions in Common LISP
> (which it is, after all, based on) that manipulate the forms, so that
> I could get a better understanding of KIF?
KIF uses Lisp as a basis for its syntax, not its semantics (meaning).
To understand how KIF is given meaning, see the Semantics section of
the manual referenced above.
> Or should I study the "Infix" KIF discussed in chapter 11? But the
> infix-notation system grammar shown on the page seems to be poorly
> edited, and several things make no sense.
Might be better to have a look at CL if you're still interested in KR.
HTH,
David
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 02:51:33 GMT, David Kinny <···@OMIT.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
wrote:
>> However, is there any
>> way that KIF could be represented as a set of functions in Common LISP
>> (which it is, after all, based on) that manipulate the forms, so that
>> I could get a better understanding of KIF?
>
>KIF uses Lisp as a basis for its syntax, not its semantics (meaning).
>To understand how KIF is given meaning, see the Semantics section of
>the manual referenced above.
>
But a quick Web search verified for me that there have apparently been
attempts to render KIF-related processes in LISP. I had figured that
perhaps a lot of the lines might start with
(DEFUN KIF-whatever ...
and thus I tried the phrase "defun kif", which gets 4 hits on Google.
daniel mcgrath
--
Daniel Gerard McGrath, a/k/a "Govende":
for e-mail replace "invalid" with "com"
Developmentally disabled;
has Autism (Pervasive Developmental Disorder),
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder,
& periodic bouts of depression.
[This signature is under construction.]
In <··································@4ax.com> Daniel al-Autistiqui <·········@hotmail.invalid> writes:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 02:51:33 GMT, David Kinny <···@OMIT.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
> wrote:
> >> However, is there any
> >> way that KIF could be represented as a set of functions in Common LISP
> >> (which it is, after all, based on) that manipulate the forms, so that
> >> I could get a better understanding of KIF?
> >
> >KIF uses Lisp as a basis for its syntax, not its semantics (meaning).
> >To understand how KIF is given meaning, see the Semantics section of
> >the manual referenced above.
> >
> But a quick Web search verified for me that there have apparently been
> attempts to render KIF-related processes in LISP. I had figured that
> perhaps a lot of the lines might start with
> (DEFUN KIF-whatever ...
> and thus I tried the phrase "defun kif", which gets 4 hits on Google.
Yes, people have written programs in Lisp to generate and manipulate
stuff represented in KIF. But is that what you meant when you asked
if "KIF could be represented as a set of functions in Common LISP ...
that manipulate the forms"? I imagined you meant something different.
I should have sought clarification; let me now, did you mean:
1) Can Lisp functions be written that manipulate KIF specifications?
2) Can a specific KIF specification be turned into a set of Lisp
functions that are somehow equivalent?
3) Can "KIF itself" be represented as a set of Lisp functions?
4) Something else.
My answers would be
1) Sure, that's what your google search showed up
2) Yes, but I've never seen it done.
3) Well perhaps it could somehow, but why would you want to do that?
4) Don't know :)
Over to you,
David
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 00:46:03 GMT, David Kinny <···@OMIT.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
wrote:
>In <··································@4ax.com> Daniel al-Autistiqui <·········@hotmail.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 02:51:33 GMT, David Kinny <···@OMIT.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
>> wrote:
>
>> >> However, is there any
>> >> way that KIF could be represented as a set of functions in Common LISP
>> >> (which it is, after all, based on) that manipulate the forms, so that
>> >> I could get a better understanding of KIF?
>> >
>> >KIF uses Lisp as a basis for its syntax, not its semantics (meaning).
>> >To understand how KIF is given meaning, see the Semantics section of
>> >the manual referenced above.
>> >
>> But a quick Web search verified for me that there have apparently been
>> attempts to render KIF-related processes in LISP. I had figured that
>> perhaps a lot of the lines might start with
>
>> (DEFUN KIF-whatever ...
>
>> and thus I tried the phrase "defun kif", which gets 4 hits on Google.
>
>Yes, people have written programs in Lisp to generate and manipulate
>stuff represented in KIF. But is that what you meant when you asked
>if "KIF could be represented as a set of functions in Common LISP ...
>that manipulate the forms"? I imagined you meant something different.
>I should have sought clarification; let me now, did you mean:
>
>1) Can Lisp functions be written that manipulate KIF specifications?
>
I may have likely meant that. I'm not exactly sure if I understand
correctly what *you* mean.
>My answers would be
>
>1) Sure, that's what your google search showed up
>
I found that one of the hits was actually at the Stanford KSL site, so
perhaps that page will be helpful. I was looking at the "ARPA
Knowledge Sharing Effort public library" directory page
(http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/knowledge-sharing/) and in particular the
"Software Library" section referring to the 'lib' subdirectory. But
it seems that I do not completely understand the structure of the
'lib' subdirectory. Although I found some things that were in LISP,
I'm not exactly sure what is supposed to be done with those files and
how the programs are supposed to work.
Any help here would be appreciated.
daniel mcgrath
--
Daniel Gerard McGrath, a/k/a "Govende":
for e-mail replace "invalid" with "com"
Developmentally disabled;
has Autism (Pervasive Developmental Disorder),
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder,
& periodic bouts of depression.
[This signature is under construction.]
In <··································@4ax.com> Daniel al-Autistiqui <·········@hotmail.invalid> writes:
>On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 00:46:03 GMT, David Kinny <···@OMIT.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
>wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >Yes, people have written programs in Lisp to generate and manipulate
> >stuff represented in KIF. But is that what you meant when you asked
> >if "KIF could be represented as a set of functions in Common LISP ...
> >that manipulate the forms"? I imagined you meant something different.
> >I should have sought clarification; let me now, did you mean:
> >
> >1) Can Lisp functions be written that manipulate KIF specifications?
> >
> I may have likely meant that. I'm not exactly sure if I understand
> correctly what *you* mean.
> >My answers would be
> >
> >1) Sure, that's what your google search showed up
> >
> I found that one of the hits was actually at the Stanford KSL site, so
> perhaps that page will be helpful. I was looking at the "ARPA
> Knowledge Sharing Effort public library" directory page
> (http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/knowledge-sharing/) and in particular the
> "Software Library" section referring to the 'lib' subdirectory. But
> it seems that I do not completely understand the structure of the
> 'lib' subdirectory. Although I found some things that were in LISP,
> I'm not exactly sure what is supposed to be done with those files and
> how the programs are supposed to work.
> Any help here would be appreciated.
Daniel,
There are only 2 accessible directories in lib/, the other links are
broken/removed. One is a KIF parser written in C, which is unlikely
to be of much interest to you, and the other is a unit conversion
agent written in Lisp which uses Ontolingua, KQML and KAPI; this is
also unlikely to be very helpful.
Perhaps if you could spell out what it is you'd like to learn about,
I or someone else here could point you towards some resources.
David
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 01:44:46 GMT, David Kinny <···@OMIT.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
wrote:
>In <··································@4ax.com> Daniel al-Autistiqui <·········@hotmail.invalid> writes:
>
>> I found that one of the hits was actually at the Stanford KSL site, so
>> perhaps that page will be helpful. I was looking at the "ARPA
>> Knowledge Sharing Effort public library" directory page
>> (http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/knowledge-sharing/) and in particular the
>> "Software Library" section referring to the 'lib' subdirectory. But
>> it seems that I do not completely understand the structure of the
>> 'lib' subdirectory. Although I found some things that were in LISP,
>> I'm not exactly sure what is supposed to be done with those files and
>> how the programs are supposed to work.
>
>> Any help here would be appreciated.
>
>Daniel,
>
>There are only 2 accessible directories in lib/, the other links are
>broken/removed. One is a KIF parser written in C, which is unlikely
>to be of much interest to you, and the other is a unit conversion
>agent written in Lisp which uses Ontolingua, KQML and KAPI; this is
>also unlikely to be very helpful.
>
>Perhaps if you could spell out what it is you'd like to learn about,
>I or someone else here could point you towards some resources.
>
I am trying to learn something about KIF but I don't seem to be
entirely sure of everything that I want to do.
I am not (yet) convinced that the files in lib/unit-conversion-agent/
are unlikely to be very helpful for me. I just took a look at that
directory: it contains eight files called 'communicate', 'kapi',
'kif', 'kqml', 'package', 'physical-quantities',
'standard-units-and-dimensions', and 'unit-and-dim', each one with a
'.lisp' on the end. Obviously the KIF system has some relevance here,
for they named an entire file after it in addition to naming a few
functions of the 'unit-and-dim' file after it. I'm not exactly sure
what the Ontolingua is that you mention, but I've seen it come up
sometimes while doing past searches on the KIF system. It seems
likely that may be some sort of more recent version, or perhaps an
extension, of KIF.
If these files should not be helpful, then perhaps one of the other
things that comes up at Google for "defun kif" will be.
daniel mcgrath
--
Daniel Gerard McGrath, a/k/a "Govende":
for e-mail replace "invalid" with "com"
Developmentally disabled;
has Autism (Pervasive Developmental Disorder),
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder,
& periodic bouts of depression.
[This signature is under construction.]
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 02:51:33 GMT, David Kinny <···@OMIT.cs.mu.OZ.AU> said:
> In <··································@4ax.com> Daniel al-Autistiqui
> <·········@hotmail.invalid> writes:
>
>> Hi. I had recently taken a look at some sort of computer-related
>> logic system known as the Knowledge Interchange Format, or KIF
>> (http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/dpans.html).
> ...
> Further progress which created something called Common Logic (CL)
> that is a synthesis of KIF, CGs and predicate logic is reported at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Apr/0061.html .
Just to clarify, CL is more a generalization than a synthesis. It
provides a very general, *abstract* syntax that specifies only the
structure of well-formed expressions without legislating their actual
appearance. "Concrete" languages like KIF, CGs, and typical first-order
languages that tell you exactly what logical operators, terms, and
sentences look like are thus all instances of CL languages; in
ISO-speak, they are all "CL-conformant". CL also encompasses languages
with less restrictive grammars as well (notably, languages like HILOG in
which names can occur in either predicate or argument position in atomic
formulas), and permits also the introduction of sequence variables as
found in the original version of KIF. The model theory for languages
without sequence variables, despite some non-traditional features for
interpreting less restrictive grammars, is purely first-order; the
introduction of sequence variables bumps the expressive strength of a
language up to that of a sublanguage of L_{{\omega_1}\omega} (where,
notably, compactness still fails).
The point of CL is to facilitate interoperability -- it provides an
efficient general framework for specifying and integrating KR languages.
And by specifying languages in terms of structure only, religious wars
about the superiority of one concrete language over another for KR
purposes (e.g., the virtues of parentheses, Polish notation, graphics,
or ASCII) are largely undercut, or at least focused purely on
substantive matters of formal expressiveness.
> CL was recently submitted as an ISO draft standard. You can find
> out all about CL at http://cl.tamu.edu/ .
Chris Menzel
David Kinny <···@OMIT.cs.mu.OZ.AU> writes:
> In <··································@4ax.com> Daniel al-Autistiqui <·········@hotmail.invalid> writes:
>
>> Hi. I had recently taken a look at some sort of computer-related
>> logic system known as the Knowledge Interchange Format, or KIF
>> (http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/dpans.html). To learn about this or
>> similar kinds of systems would, I suppose, help me to understand some
>> of the most difficult aspects of mathematics.
>
> Hi daniel,
>
> I suspect probably not, but that of course depends on what you mean by
> "the most difficult aspects of mathematics". If you want to learn
> about mathematical logic or logic as a basis for mathematics, KIF is
> not a very good starting point, try a text on mathematical logic.
>
> But if you already know logic and are interested logical languages for
> knowledge representation (KR) that can be processed by machines, then
> KIF is a good starting point. If so, then I suggest you start by
> reading http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/Hypertext/kif-manual.html to
> get a better idea about what it's all about. (This is about an earlier
> version of KIF, but includes far more explanantion than the document
> you referenced.)
>
> As far as its status goes, it seems KIF has not been standardised.
> Some work to improve it and connect it with other KR techniques such
> as Conceptual Graphs and the Standard Upper Ontology was begun around
> 2000, reported at http://suo.ieee.org/suo-kif/msg00023.html .
>
> Further progress which created something called Common Logic (CL)
> that is a synthesis of KIF, CGs and predicate logic is reported at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Apr/0061.html .
> CL was recently submitted as an ISO draft standard. You can find
> out all about CL at http://cl.tamu.edu/ .
>
>> However, is there any
>> way that KIF could be represented as a set of functions in Common LISP
>> (which it is, after all, based on) that manipulate the forms, so that
>> I could get a better understanding of KIF?
>
> KIF uses Lisp as a basis for its syntax, not its semantics (meaning).
> To understand how KIF is given meaning, see the Semantics section of
> the manual referenced above.
>
>> Or should I study the "Infix" KIF discussed in chapter 11? But the
>> infix-notation system grammar shown on the page seems to be poorly
>> edited, and several things make no sense.
>
> Might be better to have a look at CL if you're still interested in KR.
>
> HTH,
> David
I would agree with David's points. If you are interested in the logic
side of things, definitely check out the common logic stuff and you
might find conceptual graphs worth looking at. CGs are based on
Peirce's existential graphs and provide a very 'visual' way of working
with logic. I also think Peirce's approach is far more straight
forward than more 'traditional' approaches.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:36:32 -0500, Daniel al-Autistiqui
<·········@hotmail.invalid> wrote:
>Hi. I had recently taken a look at some sort of computer-related
>logic system known as the Knowledge Interchange Format, or KIF
>(http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/dpans.html). To learn about this or
>similar kinds of systems would, I suppose, help me to understand some
>of the most difficult aspects of mathematics.
No, this system is totally irrelevant to almost all of mathematics,
including the most difficult aspects.
> However, is there any
>way that KIF could be represented as a set of functions in Common LISP
>(which it is, after all, based on) that manipulate the forms, so that
>I could get a better understanding of KIF?
>
>Or should I study the "Infix" KIF discussed in chapter 11? But the
>infix-notation system grammar shown on the page seems to be poorly
>edited, and several things make no sense.
>
>daniel mcgrath
************************
David C. Ullrich
Daniel al-Autistiqui wrote:
> Hi. I had recently taken a look at some sort of computer-related
> logic system known as the Knowledge Interchange Format, or KIF
> (http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/dpans.html). To learn about this or
> similar kinds of systems would, I suppose, help me to understand some
> of the most difficult aspects of mathematics. However, is there any
> way that KIF could be represented as a set of functions in Common LISP
> (which it is, after all, based on) that manipulate the forms, so that
> I could get a better understanding of KIF?
>
> Or should I study the "Infix" KIF discussed in chapter 11? But the
> infix-notation system grammar shown on the page seems to be poorly
> edited, and several things make no sense.
I thought I heard of some ontological xml system similar to this. I
think LISP is really cool and wish to learn it some day. I like this
KIF for it is a little bit like a logical language like Lojban. So many
perseverations and so little time!
I don't know that KIF could be represented as a set of functions in
LISP but it should be parsible and perhaps even "translatable" even and
could even turn KIF perhaps into a "standard natural language output".
One could design functions or macros to do just that perhaps.
This is one of my favorite things to discuss as well.
H
> daniel mcgrath
> --
> Daniel Gerard McGrath, a/k/a "Govende":
> for e-mail replace "invalid" with "com"
>
> Developmentally disabled;
> has Autism (Pervasive Developmental Disorder),
> Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder,
> & periodic bouts of depression.
> [This signature is under construction.]
Daniel al-Autistiqui wrote:
> Hi. I had recently taken a look at some sort of computer-related
> logic system known as the Knowledge Interchange Format, or KIF
> (http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/dpans.html). To learn about this or
> similar kinds of systems would, I suppose, help me to understand some
> of the most difficult aspects of mathematics. However, is there any
> way that KIF could be represented as a set of functions in Common LISP
> (which it is, after all, based on) that manipulate the forms, so that
> I could get a better understanding of KIF?
>
> Or should I study the "Infix" KIF discussed in chapter 11? But the
> infix-notation system grammar shown on the page seems to be poorly
> edited, and several things make no sense.
OWL and SUMO mentioned. OWL is what I was thinking of.
http://icosym-nt.cvut.cz/kifb/en/
Translations between UML, OWL, KIF and
the WebKB-2 languages (For-Taxonomy, Frame-CG, Formalized English)
http://icosym-nt.cvut.cz/kifb/en/
There is a really great open source tool for AI called OpenCyc that has
a "Knowledge pump" in it.
http://www.opencyc.org/
H
dx'd HFA
From: Don Geddis
Subject: Re: The KIF system (Knowledge Interchange Format)
Date:
Message-ID: <87u09fkazg.fsf@geddis.org>
Daniel al-Autistiqui <·········@hotmail.invalid> wrote on Tue, 28 Mar 2006:
> Hi. I had recently taken a look at some sort of computer-related
> logic system known as the Knowledge Interchange Format, or KIF
> (http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/dpans.html).
Hey, I remember that! I worked on KIF a little when I was a graduate student.
> However, is there any way that KIF could be represented as a set of
> functions in Common LISP (which it is, after all, based on) that manipulate
> the forms, so that I could get a better understanding of KIF?
I'm not sure what you mean by this, since you seem to have some false
assumptions in the question.
But if you're looking for a Common Lisp system that can manipulate KIF
expressions (for example, doing inference), that same Logic Group at Stanford
also has a CL software system called Epilog which is a KIF-based theorem
prover. (It's sort of like Prolog, but in Common Lisp and using KIF.)
Try contacting the professor
Mike Genesereth, ··········@cs.stanford.edu
to get a pointer to Epilog.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We
might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.
-- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey