[tmcl-wg] Overlapping, matching, conflict between constrains: CALL for UsageScenarios

[Dan Corwin]

Mary Nishikawa wrote:

> Sorry Bernard, I am in the dark. What are frame-based ontologies?
> Can you define it?

Hi Mary, 

If I may fill in here ...

Frames were an early AI paradigm for KR, still used after 25+ 
years.  They keep values under "slots" constrained by metadata 
called "facets".  Terminology aside, they show approaches we 
might usefully tap for handling TMCL's similar problems.

I recently posted links [1]-[4], on other views of facets and 
constraints.  (Go "up" from [1] for a summary of Frames):

> [1] http://babs.cs.umass.edu/research/frame-system/section1_2_0_2.html
> 
> These techniques would let XTM 1.0 readily record several common 
> sorts of constraints, including those of [2], [3] and [4]:
> 
> [2] http://www.ai.sri.com/~gfp/spec/paper/node22.html
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#facets
> [4] http://kmi.open.ac.uk/psi/datatypes.html

Frames were originally embedded in Lisp.  Today, all the Lisp 
programs once employed as constraint-checkers might be replaced 
by description-logic interpreters.  That adds optional new 
wrinkles, and a host of new design problems as well.

Murray Altheim, who proposed [4], posted related link [5].  It 
discusses the main semantic web languages, compared at [6].  At
the high end, they seem to follow the DL-based drumbeat:

> [5] http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/clprop.htm#s05
> [6] http://www.daml.org/language/features.html

Refs [1]-[6] cannot say *how* TMCL handles constraints, but they
may provide a listing of *which* constraints most need handling,
and give specific examples of related work.

Cheers,
Dan Corwin

PS - This other thread will put the above quotes in context:

  http://www.infoloom.com/pipermail/topicmapmail/2003q1/004539.html