Ali, (01)
I sympathize with you: (02)
AH> 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. (03)
One reason is that some implementers aren't aware that there are
more efficient representations than the so-called "triple stores".
Therefore, they force the knowledge engineers and subject-matter
experts to live with their choice of a clumsy notation. (04)
But sometimes there may be theoretical reasons for emphasizing
certain kinds of relations. For example, linguists often use
'case relations' or 'thematic roles' to relate a verb to the
noun phrases that represent participants in the action.
For example, consider the sentence (05)
Sue gives a child a new book. (06)
A simple triadic relation gives(x,y,z) could be used to relate
Sue (x) to a child (y) and a new book (z). (07)
But in linguistics, it's often convenient to represent the
relations between the participants and the act of giving by
dyadic relations of agent, beneficiary, and theme: (08)
There is an act w of type giving, x is the agent of w,
y is the beneficiary of w, and z is the theme of w. (09)
If you have a logic that supports n-adic relations, you can write
rules to map one representation to the other as needed. (010)
John (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
|