ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] n-ary vs binary

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:59:45 -0800
Message-id: <6B13C605D829431E9323BAEE35A2127C@rhm8200>
Prepositional phrases and fixed-arity n-ary relations
are an integral part of the mKR language.
You may wish to download the mKE program from
to explore these ideas.
 
Here is a brief description of the mKR representations;
see the web site for more details.
 
1. prepositional phrases
Optional prepositional phrase lists are used to
represent the properties of actions.  This
particular example could be written as either
of the following "propositions".
 
    at time = 20090214Z-5 {
      Pat do give = Giving1234 od Book23 to Mary1256 done;
    };
 
or
 
    at time = 20090214Z-5 {
      Mary1256 do receive = Giving1234 od Book23 from Pat done;
    };
 
"at" specifies the "context" of the enclosed "sentence",
and may include "space", "time", "view".
The "sentence" has a "subject" and "action" separated by
"do", followed by optional prepositional phrases, terminated
by "done;".
The event name, "Giving1234", is normally omitted, and
is generated automatically by mKE.  The generated name
is typically of the form give_1234 or receive_1234.
The preposition "od" specifies the direct object.
The preposition "from" specifies initial condition,
such as source.
The preposition "to" specifies final condition,
such as destination.
 
2. fixed arity n-ary relations
Fixed-arity n-ary relations use a comma-separated tuple
format.  The definition of the relation includes the
"format" and a context-dependent "meaning".  The meaning
can be an mKR "script" or a Unicon "procedure".
Here is an example from the genealogy application of mKE
 
r_phone is relation with
  arraymode=gdbm,arraykey="$1",
  label=[pid, phone, fax, email],
  format=[person:1, phone:2, phone:3, email:4],
  automatic=ISU,
  meaning={$1 has phone=$2,fax=$3,email=$4;};
begin relation r_phone;
Dick McCullough 1936,209-295-1365,NA,rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
end relation r_phone;
 
Dick McCullough
Ayn Rand do speak od mKR done;
mKE do enhance od Real Intelligence done;
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;
http://mKRmKE.org/
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] n-ary vs binary

Hi Matthew, 

 

Matthew West wrote:

 

Dear Rich,

 

>[MW] Dear PatC,

> 

>So is:

> 

>Giving1234

-          By Pat

-          Of Book23

-          To Mary1256

-          On 20090214Z-5

> 

>So much harder to cope with?

 

Generalizing, are you postulating use of a few words (by, of, to, on, ?), perhaps

exactly the set of prepositions, as an NLP representation of binary relationships

to process sentences? 

 

Aren?t there cases where the preposition itself has multiple meanings?  For ?of?:

 

The book of Mark

The Duke of Windsor

Sort of like a bird

Lots of biscuits

A cause of global warming

 

These examples seem to display a diversity of meanings.  Why would your

approach make it easy to handle these relationships?  Similar concerns

about the other prepositions would also surface IMHO after analysis. 

 

-Rich

[MW] I was just being lazy. If I were working this out properly (as we have in ISO 15926) I would have a set of role terms that were properly defined. I was only trying to make a point about understandability of the binary form, which need be no harder than an n-ary form if you present it sensibly.

 

Regards

 

Matthew West                           

 

The ?understandability? issue is key here.  In a commercial project, the entire team must have nearly identical understanding of the meaning at issue.  If one uses a preposition ?of? as a link in a database relation, all members of the team must have the same meaning in mind to be able to use it.  The team won?t have time to philosophize on the words, and they will almost certainly want to use a previously existing ontology, even if it is small.  So using polysemous prepositions won?t work well in that ecosystem.  Instead, a single sense meaning must be defined for each link word. 

 

That?s why I don?t think using binary forms has the same expressive power as the signature, such as

give( Donor, Thing, Recipient) where give is essentially monosemous (Sp?). 

 

-Rich

 

 

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

 



_________________________________________________________________
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

_________________________________________________________________
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>