[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] Frames vs Logic again

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Adam Pease <adampease@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:52:08 -0800
Message-id: <>
   I noticed in your file of suggested additions the following:    (01)

(instance hasName BinaryRelation)
(domain hasName 1 Entity)
(domain hasName 2 SymbolicString)
(inverse hasName names)
(documentation hasName "hasName relates an instance of an entity to a 
string of linguistic characters used to reference the entity in linguistic 
communication.  This is the inverse of the SUMO relation 'names', added to 
allow more flexible representation in Protege.  The hasName relation is not 
a necessary relation since not every entity is named by a SymbolicString 
and not every SymbolicString is the label for an entity.")
----------------------------    (02)

This is entirely redundant with the existing SUMO relation 'names'.  The 
only reason one would want such a definition, is, as you note, to overcome 
the limitations of a frame system.  A frame system is oriented to 
inspection and reasoning on the first argument, so if one looks at the 
frame for 'SymbolicString' one won't see the slot 'names'.  It will only be 
visible when one is looking at the frame for 'Entity'.    (03)

If you feel the need for this inverse of 'names' a case could be made that 
every binary relation must also have an inverse, thus doubling 
(uneccessarily) the number of relations.  Of course, this also doesn't 
solve the problem that all ternary and higher order relations (of which 
there are a number in SUMO) will still be invisible in Protege or any other 
frame system.    (04)

This is a good example of why Protege is a bad choice for a formal ontology 
expressed in logic.    (05)

Adam    (06)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (07)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>