[Attempto] ACE Wiki questions: How to represent plans, possible extensions to punctuation and API, and implementing non-OWL rules

[Murray, William R]

Norbert,

|Bill, why do you want to do planning in SWRL rules? Wouldn't many of  
|your problems disappear if you used ACE directly instead of AceWiki  
|that - at least currently because of its use of the reasoner Pellet -  
|offers only a subset of ACE geared towards translation into OWL?

Initially, I started thinking of ACE Wiki since this particular project
I'm working on involves collaborative planning with both humans and
computer agents. So I was thinking of the ACE controlled natural language
as working well for the humans and the OWL ontologies as working well for
the agents and using some rule language for detecting plan inconsistencies
as the collaboration has to do with developing plans, fixing them when they
go wrong and the like.

But my knowledge of the pantheon of ACE tools is embryonic, and so I tend to not make fine distinctions between different ACE reasoning tools. Thus I confess to not understanding how your reasoner RACE differs in capability from the reasoning that is performed in either ACE Wiki or ACE Rules.

I'm guessing that your reasoner handles full First-Order Logic, and that ACE Rules handles less but more than ACE Wiki, and that ACE Wiki just (!) handles OWL DL as it uses PELLET.

Also, I'm not up on the latest OWL 2.0 changes so don't know what new reasoning capabilities have been introduced there.

Is there a short introductory paper on your reasoner you can point me to, hopefully with simple concrete examples? I'm wondering if your reasoner could be compared to a natural deduction reasoner or one of the resolution theorem provers like Prover9 or if it is just a different beast altogether.

> 5. I'm wondering how to use ACE grammar to represent events in time  
> and space:
>
> Does ACE allow describing the location and time of events, and what  
> is the best way to
> do this? I'd like to be able to have two statements such as "Ranger  
> Company A is at Kandahar
> at time T" and "Ranger Company A is at Melbourne at time T" and  
> conclude there is a contradiction.
>
> But I fear these kind of statements would not be in the ACE grammar  
> and in general I'd need a constraint checker
> to see if two locations are too far apart for the unit to move  
> between in the time specified. Something
> like a tie-in to CHR would be nice.

|You can - as you already did - express time and location of events in  
|ACE by prepositional phrases. You can express - as Tobias wrote -  
|contradictions by additional axioms using logical negation. Again this  
|might be easier in full ACE. Try this with the ACE reasoner RACE.

Thanks, yes, I'll definitely take a closer look at RACE now you've mentioned it. I also still have ACE Rules on my radar screen and want to get that eventually.

Thanks for your help.

Bill