|From:||(•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,., <asaegyn@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:56:21 -0500|
John and Pat,|
While I realize that it is possible to reduce many higher valence expressions to those with lower arity, it is unclear to me why we would force this on people.
As John illustrated below, it is possible to capture "+" as a series of binary and unary relations, though the syntax and articulation of this idea seems rather unnatural and unintuitive.
Off the top of my head, my location seems like a quaternary relation (location Ali, x, ,y ,z) in 3D space. Or by GPS, it'd be at least a ternary relation. Similarly, if i wanted a time stamp associated within a relation (as opposed to a conjunction with another relation), i'd want potentially higher arity relations.
To use an analogy, while i might be able to reconstruct a multi-variable derivative by taking partial derivatives and then taking a series, it seems like an awkward workaround to express what would otherwise be a straightforward oncept.
Given that this discussion is ostensibly concerned with
Is there something I missed? (and What is an Ontology)
Might you tell me what the advantage of restricting vocabularies to unary and binary predicates are?
This seems to be steering the discussion to the question of "what constitutes a 'good' axiom?"
Indeed, it seems to me that the greatest difficulty in the creation of ontologies is the paucity of guidelines as to what constitutes a "good" axiom or ontology. Michael Uschold and Michael Gruninger wrote a paper briefly touching this topic in 1996, though i'm not sure how much of an impact it had (277 citations). They appealed to the notion of competency questions to guage whether the ontology you have developed is addressing its purported function.
Extending this idea, if an ontology is a coherent account of what (relevantly) is, in some formal language, we should be concerned with capturing that knowledge in a direct way. If we so desire, we may then use projection to reduce the arity of the relation (and perhaps create contexts), but to a priori restrict _expression_ and understanding of ontologies to this particular mode of representation seem odd to me, unless of course, i'm missing something :P.
Ref - Uschold & Gruninger 1996) M. Uschold and M. Gruninger. "Ontologies: Principles, methods and applications." Knowledge Engineering Review vol. 11, pages 93-196, 1996.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:48 PM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ali and Pat,
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Means for Systems Engineering, Ed Barkmeyer|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology and Category Theory, John F. Sowa|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Is there something I missed?, John F. Sowa|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Is there something I missed?, John F. Sowa|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|