Re: [model-challenge] marriage template

[Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@xxxxxxxxx>]

Henson,

You wrote:

When one goes to other examples such as a family one
might chose to introduce family as a thing and have participant
relationships..

The following Executable English model may be of interest

this-relationship is a specialization of this-higher-relationship
=================================================================
sibling                                family
marriage                               family
family                                 the class of all relationships


some-relationship1 is a specialization of some-relationship2
that-relationship2 is a specialization of some-relationship3
------------------------------------------------------------
that-relationship1 is a specialization of that-relationship3


some-person is related through some-relationship to some-other-person
that-relationship is a specialization of some-higher-relationship
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
that-person is related through that-higher-relationship to that-other-person


this-person is related through this-relationship to this-other-person
=====================================================================
Fred                           marriage              Jane
Fred                           sibling               John

It's also online at [1], and you can view run and change it with a browser pointed to the same site.

[1] www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/DataModelling1.agent

HTH,  -- Adrian

Internet Business Logic
A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English Q/A over SQL and RDF
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com   
Shared use is free, and there are no advertisements

Adrian Walker
Reengineering

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:21 PM, henson graves <henson.graves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

One can view marriage as a binary relation and replace the drawing with
three components with one with two connected nodes. For those interested in
such things does having attributes on a marriage relation require a higher
order logic? However, one will have to have attributes defined for the
marriage relation. However, if one wants to characterize different kinds of
marriage one might want to introduce marriage as a thing independent of the
spousal relationship. When one goes to other examples such as a family one
might chose to introduce family as a thing and have participant
relationships. As another example consider a water molecule. What diagram
and what axiomatic formalization makes sense for water molecules.

-----Original Message-----
From: model-challenge-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:model-challenge-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of LaVern
Pritchard
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 1:28 PM
To: Modeling Benchmark Challenge
Subject: Re: [model-challenge] marriage template

With due regard for the fact that I'm at best a latecoming curious observer
to this project ...

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

There are legal ontologists, mostly European, it seems, who might have
interesting views as there might be a grand meeting of the minds.

___________________________________________________
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
___________________________________________________

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.

_________________________________________________________________________
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


_________________________________________________________________________
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

_________________________________________________________________________ 
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    (01)