[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [model-challenge] marriage template

To: Modeling Benchmark Challenge <model-challenge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Mike Bennett <mbennett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 15:40:19 +0100
Message-id: <4FAA81D3.5060708@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Personally I would recommend using an ontology partitioning that 
distinguishes between "orders" not in the sense of higher order 
of logic, but as follows:    (01)

First order thing: a thing in itself e.g. a man, a woman
Second order thing: a thing defined specifically in some context 
e.g. a wife, a husband
Third order thing: that which brings two more things into those 
second order relationships: a marriage.    (02)

This is per Peirce and others, and as explained by John Sowa. We 
use it all the time for things like parties to contracts, 
transactions and so on.    (03)

Mike    (04)

On 09/05/2012 02:21, henson graves 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 -
> 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:
> Subscribe: mailto:model-challenge-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Config/Unsubscribe:
> Shared Files:
> References:
> Wiki:
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives:
> Subscribe: mailto:model-challenge-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Config/Unsubscribe:
> Shared Files:
> References: 
> Wiki:
>    (05)

Mike Bennett
Hypercube Ltd.
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068    (06)

Message Archives: 
Subscribe: mailto:model-challenge-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Shared Files: 
Wiki:    (07)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>