> Is Cct
>
> 1. C(c)@t ?
> 2. C@t(c) ?
> 3. C(c@t) ? (01)
I think it is 1. C(c)@t (02)
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Wacek Kusnierczyk <waku@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2/3/11 10:56 AM, Adrian Walker wrote:
>
> Hi Wacek,
>
> There's actually a system that supports attaching sentences computationally
> to predicates along the lines you suggest.
>
> Here's an ontological example that one can run using the system.
>
> Thanks for the pointer. I'm afraid I do not follow the output you quote
> below. How does it map to the three cases mentioned by Pat?
>
>
>
> | This example is from "Relations in biomedical ontologies" by Barry
> Smith et al,
> | Genome Biology 2005. http://genomebiology.com/2005/6/5/R46
>
> |
> | 3. C part_of C1 = [definition] for all c, t, if Cct then
> | there is some c1 such that C1c1t and c
> part_of c1 at t.
>
>
> Is Cct
>
> 1. C(c)@t ?
> 2. C@t(c) ?
> 3. C(c@t) ?
>
> vQ
>
>
>
>
> for all c, t, if eg-C c t then there is some c1 such that eg-C1 c1 t and c
> part_of c1 at t
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 3. that-C is a part_of the Continuant class that-C1
>
>
> (A c,t) [ eg-C c t => (E c1) [ eg-C1 c1 t and c part_of c1 at t ] ]
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> for all c, t, if eg-C c t then there is some c1 such that eg-C1 c1 t and c
> part_of c1 at t
>
>
> some-C and some-C1 are two different Non-process classes with instances
>
> not : (E c,t) [ that-C c t and not (E c1) [ that-C1 c1 t and c part_of c1 at
> t ] ]
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> (A c,t) [ that-C c t => (E c1) [ that-C1 c1 t and c part_of c1 at t ] ]
>
>
>
> some-C and some-C1 are two different Non-process classes with instances
> some-c is an instance_of that-C at some-t
> not : (E c1) [ that-C1 c1 that-t and that-c part_of c1 at that-t ]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (E c,t) [ that-C c t and not (E c1) [ that-C1 c1 t and c part_of c1 at t ] ]
>
>
> some-c1 is an instance_of some-C1 at some-t
> some-c is a part_of that-c1 at that-t
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (E c1) [ that-C1 c1 that-t and that-c part_of c1 at that-t ]
>
>
>
> this-item is an instance_of this-Class at this-t
> ========================================================
> c1 C1 1
>
> c C 1
> c1 C1 2
> c C 2
>
>
> this-item1 is a part_of this-item2 at this-t
> =============================================
>
> c c1 1
> c c1 2
>
>
> the class this-class is of type this-type
> ==========================================
> C Non-process
>
> C1 Non-process
>
>
>
> the class some-C is of type Non-process and has at least one instance
> the class some-C1 is of type Non-process and has at least one instance
> that-C and that-C1 are different
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> that-C and that-C1 are two different Non-process classes with instances
>
>
> the class some-C is of type Non-process
> some-c is an instance_of that-C at some-t
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> the class that-C is of type Non-process and has at least one instance
>
> some-t1 is less than some-t2
> -------------------------------------
>
> that-t1 is earlier than that-t2
>
> some-C1 is not equal some-C2
> -------------------------------
> that-C1 and that-C2 are different
>
> One can view, run and change the example by pointing a browser to the site
> below and selecting RelBioOntDefn3 . One can also write and run new
> examples. The vocabulary is open, and so to a large extent is the syntax.
>
> I hope this may be of interest.
>
> -- Adrian
>
> Internet Business Logic
> A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English Q/A over SQL
> and RDF
> Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
> Shared use is free, and there are no advertisements
>
> Adrian Walker
> Reengineering
> Phone: USA 860 830 2085
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Wacek Kusnierczyk <waku@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/3/11 3:37 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> > Ian, here's a non-philosophical way to characterize it. Start with an
>> > atomic sentence of the form R(a, b), with no time involved, and suppose
>that
>> > a and b here are ordinary uncontroversial physical objects, say.
>> > Intuitively, they are 3D things. Now add time, t. Where do we put the time
>> > parameter? Several answers can be given.
>> >
>> > 1. Attach it to the sentence, meaning that the sentence R(a,b) is true
>> > at the time t. This gives you a hybrid or context logic where the times
>are
>> > possible temporal worlds/indices or contexts, to which truth is
>relativized.
>> > But the sentences being so relativized do not themselves make any reference
>> > to time. Call this 3D.
>> >
>> > 2. Attach it to the relation as an extra argument, and call the relation
>> > a 'fluent': R(a, b, t) This gives you the classical AI/KR approach which
>> > used to be called the situation calculus, where one quantifies over times
>in
>> > the KR language itself, but the object terms are still thought of as
>> > denoting 3D rather than 4D entities. Call this 3D+1.
>> >
>> > 3. Attach it to the object terms (using a suitable function, written
>> > here as an infix @): R(a@t, b@t) This requires us to make sense of this @
>> > operation, and it seems natural to say that it means the t-slice of the
>> > thing named, which now has to be re-thought as a 4D entity. So the a, b
>> > things have morphed form being 3D (but lasting through time) to being
>> > genuinely 4D, and having temporal slices or parts. Call this 4D.
>> >
>> > For some folk this last step is apparently mind-boggling, although to me
>> > it is puzzling how one can think of something being 3D and also extended in
>> > time and have it *not* be 4D. For yet other people (think OBO), there are
>> > apparently two kinds of thing in the world, one kind (continuants) which
>> > must be described using the 3D+1 style , the other (occurrents) which
>should
>> > be described using the 4D style. God alone knows why anyone would believe
>> > that there are two ways to exist in time, but there's nowt as queer as
>folk,
>> > as someone's grandmother used to say.
>> >
>> > What I like about this way of contrasting the options is that it makes
>> > it be simply a matter of syntax - where in the sentence to attach the
>> > temporal parameter - and not one of metaphysics. Syntax is way easier than
>> > metaphysics. It also means that one can see quite clearly how to make the
>> > various formal techniques work together, by allowing the temporal parameter
>> > to 'float'. In fact, with a bit of extra work one can embed almost all the
>> > necessary temporal reasoning into a generalized unification algorithm which
>> > extracts temporal constraints during the unification process. I have all
>the
>> > details somewhere if you (or anyone else) are interested.
>> >
>>
>> By way of a naive, as usual, question, I wonder if the above could not
>> be syntactically summarized as
>>
>> 1. R(a,b)@t
>> 2. R@t(a,b)
>> 3. R(a@t,b@t)
>>
>> vQ
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|