Prepositional phrases and fixed-arity n-ary
are an integral part of the mKR
You may wish to download the mKE program
to explore these ideas.
Here is a brief description of the mKR
see the web site for more details.
1. prepositional phrases
Optional prepositional phrase lists are used
represent the properties of actions.
particular example could be written as
of the following "propositions".
at time = 20090214Z-5
Pat do give =
Giving1234 od Book23 to Mary1256 done;
at time = 20090214Z-5
receive = Giving1234 od Book23 from Pat done;
"at" specifies the "context" of the enclosed
and may include "space", "time",
The "sentence" has a "subject" and "action"
"do", followed by optional prepositional phrases,
The event name, "Giving1234", is normally omitted, and
automatically by mKE. The generated
is typically of
the form give_1234 or receive_1234.
The preposition "od" specifies the direct object.
The preposition "from" specifies initial
such as source.
The preposition "to" specifies final
such as destination.
2. fixed arity n-ary relations
Fixed-arity n-ary relations use a comma-separated
format. The definition of the relation
"format" and a context-dependent "meaning".
can be an mKR "script" or a Unicon
Here is an example from the genealogy application
r_phone is relation with
label=[pid, phone, fax,
format=[person:1, phone:2, phone:3, email:4],
begin relation r_phone;
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 12:38
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] n-ary vs
Matthew West wrote:
much harder to cope with?
Generalizing, are you postulating use of a few words (by, of, to,
on, ?), perhaps
the set of prepositions, as an NLP representation of binary
there cases where the preposition itself has multiple meanings? For
like a bird
A cause of
examples seem to display a diversity of meanings. Why would
make it easy to handle these relationships? Similar
other prepositions would also surface IMHO after analysis.
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
?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
That?s why I don?t
think using binary forms has the same expressive power as the signature, such
give( Donor, Thing,
Recipient) where give is essentially monosemous (Sp?).
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J