[Top] [All Lists]

[model-challenge] FW: marriage template

To: "'Modeling Benchmark Challenge'" <model-challenge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: henson graves <henson.graves@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 12:14:11 -0500
Message-id: <SNT106-DS1726224D62B6D5725BE39EE4110@xxxxxxx>
I am having trouble with mail being returned.     (01)

-----Original Message-----
From: henson graves [mailto:henson.graves@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 12:05 PM
To: 'Mike Bennett'; 'Modeling Benchmark Challenge'
Cc: 'lavern@xxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [model-challenge] marriage template    (02)

This is interesting. I am unfamiliar with Peirce's terminology so let me put
into my own and let's see where it goes.  For this exercise I would consider
Man and Woman to be atomic types.  Some people would prefer classes or sets
but not me.  However, the terminology does not matter that much here. This
corresponds to you first order things. For husband one could have both
"husband of a marriage" which I called "hasHusband" and "husbandOfWife"
which I didn't explicitly use, but could have. These concepts as I follow
you are second order.  In my preferred logic representation they can be
viewed as binary roles or subsets of a product type. Marriage is indeed more
complex. Here its instantiations require 3 individuals as I have outlined
it. Of course one still has to give the specifications on marriage to ensure
that for example a husband and wife are distinct. What do you do about the
concept of a family which may have an unspecified number of individuals in a
particular instantiation.?    (03)

Henson    (04)

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Bennett [mailto:mbennett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 9:40 AM
To: Modeling Benchmark Challenge
Cc: henson graves; lavern@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [model-challenge] marriage template    (05)

Personally I would recommend using an ontology partitioning that
distinguishes between "orders" not in the sense of higher order of logic,
but as follows:    (06)

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.    (07)

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.    (08)

Mike    (09)

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
> 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
> 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
>> 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:
> ge/
> Wiki: 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ___ Message Archives:
> Subscribe: mailto:model-challenge-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Config/Unsubscribe: 
> Shared Files: 
> References: 
> ge/
> Wiki: 
>    (010)

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    (011)

Message Archives: 
Subscribe: mailto:model-challenge-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Shared Files: 
Wiki:    (012)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>