With due regard for the fact that I'm at best a latecoming curious
observer to this project ... (01)
Let me suggest that "marriage" doesn't "have" a husband or a wife but is
a relationship name describing the legally recognized status of husband
and wife, which in turn are just labels for persons in that very
relationship. (02)
They fit together in a holistic network of language and social meaning.
Whether you say someone has a spouse, has a husband, has a wife, or is
part of a marriage is actually saying exactly the same thing from the
perspective of the individual (except for the sex role division). (03)
As for the marriage relationship itself to exist, the people must have
been lawfully married and remain such for them to be married. To have
been lawfully married may mean they have had to satisfy a checklist of
requirements which may vary depending on jurisdiction and their
circumstances. The list may include such matters as age, parental or
guardian consent, mental capacity to marry, being unmarried at the time
of the marriage, having obtained a license to marry, having a genuine
intent to marry (i.e., not entering into a fraudulent marriage, e.g. for
immigration reasons), having solemnized the marriage in some fashion
with due legal formalities, and perhaps other issues. One can find a lot
of legal definitions that are not built from strictly specifiable
logical parts but from tradition transferred into written law. (04)
Not only do the male and female in the drawing have a spouse; the female
more precisely may be said to have a husband and the male a wife. Or one
could collapse the triangular diagram into two boxes: husband and wife,
with a "In legal marriage relationship" relationship label connecting
them? The relationship does have it's own attributes of course. (05)
As an analogy, test the design of this model against a simple business
contractual relationship which, like marriage, has parties in a
relationship of legal consequence. (06)
There are legal ontologists, mostly European, it seems, who might have
interesting views as there might be a grand meeting of the minds. (07)
___________________________________________________
LaVern A. Pritchard - Pritchard Law Webs
Publisher, LawMoose / MooseBoost - www.lawmoose.com
Practitioners' Legal Problem Solving Framework
Law Practice Intellectual Capital System
Semantic Legal Search Assistant
900 Flour Exchange, 310 4th Av S, Mpls, MN 55415
612-332-0102 - lavern@xxxxxxxxxxxx
___________________________________________________ (08)
On 5/8/2012 11:13 AM, henson graves wrote:
> In an earlier email I raised the question of how to embed the diagram
> below into FOL and OWL, as well as any additonal assumptions regarding
> the diagram and any axiomitization needed to ensure that any structure
> conforming to the diagram had the three individuals and relationships.
> One could describe what is being looked for as a template.
>
> An FOL encoding might use unary predicates, Marriage(x), Male(x), and
> Female(x). One further assumption needed to obtain the template result
> would be that males and females are disjoint. While I am sure some will
> correctly point out that the assumption is false in the real world of
> people it is a tenable assumption for manufactured components with male
> and female ports and connections which can connect a female port to a
> male port. A bit of quality control can generally make this tenable.
>
> Anybody have any further ideas where to go. If this is too easy, how
> about replacing Male and Female with components which have male and
> female ports. (09)
_________________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/model-challenge/
Subscribe: mailto:model-challenge-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/model-challenge/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/ModelingBenchmarkChallenge/
References:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/resource/project/ModelingBenchmarkChallenge/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ModelingBenchmarkChallenge (010)
|