Peter, (01)
Sorry, I missed your original post where you said that scope in topic
maps cannot be reified. (02)
Recall that in topic maps to be "reified" (as far as the data model)
means to be represented by a topic. (03)
So far as I know, all scopes are represented by topics and therefore
"reified" in the sense the term is used in topic maps. (04)
So, is your question how to determine when two or more associations
share the same scope? (05)
While it is true that the data model does not provide a mechanism by
which you can determine from a topic that represents a scope all the
associations in which it appears (your suggestion of querying the entire
dataset), that is more of a question of how you want to represent scope
than anything else. (06)
You could quite legitimately have scope playing a role in the
association, in which case you could determine from that topic (which
represents a scope) all the associations where it plays that role. Not
the usual representation but certainly doable. (07)
As far as CL being "king of the hill" I would only offer the observation
that if project requirements require its use, by all means use it. One
can shred paper with a chain saw but I would not recommend it. Choose
the tool that is appropriate to what you are trying to do, not on the
basis of it being a great tool. (08)
Hope you are having a great weekend! (09)
Patrick (010)
Peter F Brown wrote:
> John:
> By "complete", I meant more in the sense that computationally it is
> impossible to determine whether every possible "situation" *can* be
> expressed by the language.
>
> I'm sure that you're right and that every Topic Map statement can be
> expressed in CL. My concern is rather that not everything in Topic Maps
> can be reified: for example, scope. One can make a statement with a
> determined scope .... but one cannot identify all the statements for
> which a given scope is valid, short of running a query over a very large
> - potentially undeterminably sized - dataset.
>
> As an aside, if CL can perform all the functions you indicate, do we
> need OMG's Ontology Definition Metamodel? Is CL king of the hill?
>
> Best regards,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F.
> Sowa
> Sent: 08 September 2007 22:21
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] quadruples talk
>
> Peter,
>
> I was just giving a few obvious examples, and the most
> obvious ones are from prepositions and verbs. I normally
> use a more flexible mapping of natural languages to logic.
>
> > Mapping parts of speech to arities is only part of the issue...
>
> The issues with NLs are immensely complicated. I just wanted
> to cite a few examples to show that NLs very commonly represent
> complex relationships with many more than two participants.
> When you add further complications, that just emphasizes
> the points I was trying to make.
>
> > RDF uses pure triples, and require many joins;
> > Topic Maps goes one better and uses triples with, additionally,
> > scope (0 to n times) assigned to the association arc and role(s)
> > assigned to the topic nodes connected by the arc; but still is
> > inadequate to express context - and although the arc type
> > (association type) can be reified, the scope cannot.
> >
> > Can CL really do this? It may be consistent in handling
> > expressions (and not assuming or prejudicing any specific number
> > of arities) but it can never claim to be complete.
>
> I have no idea what you mean by "complete". If you mean
> complete with respect to NLs, that is still a research issue,
> since nobody has a clue about the limitations of NLs.
>
> But if you mean, can CL represent anything in Topic Maps,
> the answer is yes. If you have any example you don't know
> how to map to CL, we'd be happy to show you how. Just two
> conditions:
>
> 1. Give the TM example.
>
> 2. Explain in English every aspect of the significant information
> that is represented by each feature of the TM.
>
> From that we can give you a CL representation.
>
> John
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> (011)
--
Patrick Durusau
patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Acting Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
Co-Editor, OpenDocument Format (OASIS, ISO/IEC 26300) (012)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (013)
|