Re: LOOM and PowerLoom

On Jun 20, 2008, at 8:15 AM, Goyal, Siddharth(IE10) wrote:

> Hi
>
> Thanks to everyone for your response. Some more clarifications…
>
>
> 1.      So PowerLoom has no production rule system? It’s completely  
> missing?
>

Correct.  There is no production rule system.  Instead, PowerLoom  
implements a much more extensive logic rule reasoner than Loom.  Our  
experience with Loom seemed to indicate that the production rule  
system was not particularly widely used.

> 2.      Is there any plan to provide the missing features of LOOM in  
> PowerLoom? If yes, by when?
>
At the moment we do not have any plans to add production rules to  
PowerLoom, as none of our projects need that capability.

>
> Sid
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Russ [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 11:45 PM
> To: Goyal, Siddharth(IE10); [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PowerLoom Forum] LOOM and PowerLoom
>
>
> On Jun 18, 2008, at 7:37 AM, Goyal, Siddharth(IE10) wrote:
>
> > Hi
>
> >
>
> > I have been searching for a language to represent ontologies. I have
>
> > some questions (they are based on “Evaluating Knowledge
>
> > Representation and Reasoning
>
> > Capabilities of Ontology Specification Languages” by Oscar Corcho
>
> > and Asunción Gómez-Pérez)
>
> >
>
> >       • Are there any features that LOOM supported and PowerLoom  
> does not?
>
> Yes.
>
> *  Loom has a production rule system.
>
> *  Loom has an action and method dispatch system.
>
> *  Loom has had more work done on its classifier than PowerLoom
>
>     - certain subsumption relationships based on cardinality
>
> constraints work in Loom but have not been implemented yet in  
> PowerLoom.
>
>     - qualified restrictions work in Loom but have not been
>
> implemented as frame predicates in PowerLoom (although you can always
>
> write the first order logic equivalent instead)
>
> >       • The other way round?
>
> *  PowerLoom has a much more expressive representation language.  It
>
> uses 1st (and a bit of higher) order logic.  Loom uses a description
>
> logic that is more expressive than OWL, but still less than first
>
> order logic.
>
> *  PowerLoom reasons with a full logic rules system.
>
> *  PowerLoom has facilities for mapping relations to database tables.
>
> (read-only at the moment)
>
> *  PowerLoom is available in multiple target languages (C++, Java,
>
> Common Lisp).  Loom is available only in Common Lisp.
>
> *  PowerLoom can do more reasoning with complex n-ary relations.
>
> >       • Is the inference engine of PowerLoom complete? (The  
> mentioned
>
> > paper says that for LOOM, the engine is sound but not complete)
>
> No.  It cannot be, since it implements first order logic.
>
> >       • With what purpose were LOOM and then PowerLoom created?
>
> Both were created to provide expressive and practical knowledge
>
> representation for creating applications.
>
> >       • Does STELLA have an independent compiler or is there a  
> translator
>
> > from STELLA to JAVA, C++ and LISP and then the compilation is done
>
> > with the compiler of the specific language?
>
> The latter.  Stella is translated into the target language and then
>
> compiled by a standard compiler or that target language.
>
> >
>
> > Thanks
>
> > Sid
>
> >
>
> > Honeywell
>
> > Email           :   [email protected]
>
> >                          [email protected]
>
> > Mobile         :   +91 - 9845844025
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > powerloom-forum mailing list
>
> > [email protected]
>
> > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/powerloom-forum
>