Dear Self Interested Ontologists, (01)
I discovered a book written in 1948 that explains
why the Keynesian theories don't work - he
describes what he calls the "broken window
fallacy" here: (02)
http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-
lesson/ (03)
I hope that helps stimulate more discussion of the
role of self interest in AI and in ontology
developments. Moy conclusion is that a true AI
system will have to EVOLVE effectiveness as an
ontology of communication among a plurality of
self interested observers. (04)
-Rich (05)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (06)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of doug foxvog
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 8:24 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] N-RELATIONs: Formal
Ontology, Semantic Web and Smart Applications (07)
On Fri, November 4, 2011 14:02, Cory Casanave
said:
> The other strong use-case for reification,
besides n-ary, is to support
> relations as first-class elements that can also
be the subject of other
> relations. I have found this essential to
represent the concepts of a
> domain accurately - "marriage" is such a
relation. (08)
In ontological terms, Marriage is a temporal
situation.
"isCurrentlyMarriedTo" is a relation -- in this
case a binary relation.
Beginning ontologists often start creating binary
and multiple arity
relations to represent sets of columns in a
database, not stopping to
consider what the underlying classes of things are
and realizing that
many more relations could apply to those classes
of things in various
circumstances. Events and situations are common
categories of things
that are often so modeled. (09)
Conceptually higher-arity relations are relations
among multiple things
that are more than the sum of their parts, e.g.
(between X Y Z) and
(betweenOnPath Y X Z P1). (010)
> The other use-case for
> relations of relations to add metadata about the
assertion, including the
> authority and time for which the relation is
valid. (011)
This is a useful case for reifying assertions. (012)
The concept of "relations of relations" covers
relations which can
be mapped into rules relating assertions on
statements using one
relation to assertions on statements using the
other relation. E.g.,
* subRelations
(subRelations parentOf relativeOf)
* transitiveClosure
(transitiveClosure parentOf ancestorOf)
* disjointRelations
(disjointRelations youngerThan ancestorOf) (013)
-- doug foxvog (014)
> The problem with this
> in RDF/OWL properties is that the same concept
may need, at times, to be a
> reified relation but in simpler cases a single
property will do. So a
> general representation seems to always need to
use reification. On the
> down-side reification (in RDF/OWL) makes queries
much more complex and it
> removed the relations from any "normal"
inference as they are not asserted
> in the same way.
>
> For these reasons I have concluded that the
simpler approach is for all
> relations to be "first class" so that these
artificial differences don't
> exist. Once that simplification is made the
logic & infrastructure can
> support all relations consistently and
efficiently.
>
> -Cory
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ed Barkmeyer
> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 12:32 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] N-RELATIONs: Formal
Ontology, Semantic Web
> and Smart Applications
>
> The practice of reifying relations in binary
models goes back at least to
> Peter Chen and the original Entity-Relationship
models.
>
> That is, you make the relation itself a
'class'/'entity', and then it has
> binary relationships to each of its arguments.
Each of those binary
> relationships is a term for the 'role' -- the
'argument name' if you will,
> or in the least informative of cases, just the
position number.
>
> This is precisely the recommended best practice
for representing n-ary
> relationships in OWL: the relation becomes a
'class', and each of the
> argument slots becomes an objectProperty (or
datatypeProperty) named for
> the role. The domain of the argument property
is the relation class and
> the range of the argument property is the range
of the argument. One can
> create the inverse of the role property where it
is useful, i.e., where
> one needs to navigate the model from one
argument of the relation to
> another.
>
>
> The problem the RDF folk and the OWL folk have
is the absence of a way to
> declare that the 'class' term represents an
n-ary relation. That is the
> one semantic addition that is created by the UML
AssociationClass.
>
> Unfortunately, the other rules for handling
association classes in UML
> v1 made the structure hard to use, and many UML
best practice documents
> forbid its use. The problem for slavishly
object-oriented models is
> whether there is a difference between the role
links and the attributes of
> the would-be class, and whether a class whose
instances play one of the
> roles has an attribute that refers directly to
another role player, and of
> course, what the resulting C++, C# and Java
implementations will look
> like. An alternative used by database modelers
in UML v2 is to create a
> <n-ary relation> stereotype for classes
representing reified relations and
> a <role> stereotype for the arguments. The
advantage of this approach is
> that it allows the modeler to mark up the model
to characterize
> participation multiplicities correctly, and to
create the useful inverses.
> And for database models, it distinguishes the
functional arguments (the
> role players and their keys) from the dependent
variables (the other
> attributes and associations) in the 3rd normal
form re
> lation.
>
> All of this only says that the practice of
reification of relations is
> common, but has evolved differently for
different implementation
> mechanisms and for different semantic concerns.
And make no mistake:
> Tableaux reasoning is an implementation
mechanism, and more than half of
> the RDF folk are more worried about managing
triple stores than
> manipulating their semantics.
>
> -Ed
>
> P.S. I now await John Sowa's further
elaboration/correction on the
> history of reification. :-)
>
> --
> Edward J. Barkmeyer
Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> National Institute of Standards & Technology
> Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel:
+1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Cel:
+1 240-672-5800
>
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect
consensus of NIST,
> and have not been reviewed by any Government
authority."
>
>
> David Price wrote:
>> WRT RDF doesn't it simply boil down to being
based on graphs which,
>> quoting from Wikipedia, are "mathematical
structures used to model
>> pairwise relations between objects from a
certain collection". So, I'm
>> confused by comments like "N-ary relations work
great in a graph model."
>> which seems completely at odds with the fact
that graph relations are
>> pairwise.
>>
>> UML has N-ary associations and
AssociationClass, so there's at least one
>> standard from which the semantics community
might steal an idea or two.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>
>> On 11/4/2011 2:57 PM, AzamatAbdoullaev wrote:
>>
>>> I believe this fundamental issue more belong
to the Ontolog Forum.
>>> Risk to start the n-relations thread...
>>>
>>> Azamat
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "David Booth"<david@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> To: "glenn mcdonald"<glenn@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc:
"AzamatAbdoullaev"<abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;<semanti
c-web@xxxxxx>;
>>> "Frank Manola"<fmanola@xxxxxxx>; "Sampo
Syreeni"<decoy@xxxxxx>;
>>> <alexandre.riazanov@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 3:13 PM
>>> Subject: Standard representations for n-ary
relations [was: Re:
>>> relational
>>> data as a bona fide member of the SM]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Plus RDF doesn't have any *standard* way to
tag or represent n-ary
>>>> relations -- we have taken a do-it-yourself
attitude[1] -- and thus
>>>> tools cannot predictably recognize n-ary
relations as such.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I think this is something that
would be good to address,
>>>> and
>>>> there are several simple ways it could be
done.
>>>>
>>>> 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 08:49 -0400, glenn
mcdonald wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> N-ary relations work great in a graph model.
The only reason they
>>>>> seem
>>>>> awkward in the Semantic Web world, in my
opinion, is that RDF leads
>>>>> us
>>>>> to looking at a graph *decomposition*
instead of an actual assembled
>>>>> graph. This effect cascades onto SPARQL and
OWL, and thus we end up
>>>>> with a great forest we're reduced to looking
at, and talking about,
>>>>> one twig at a time.
>>>>>
>>>>> glenn
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, November 4, 2011,
AzamatAbdoullaev<abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a big issue of Relational Ontology,
or "N-Relational Ontology
>>>>>>
>>>>> of Things", as discussed 5 years ago:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2
006Apr/0047.html.
>>>>>> And it is not strange that a consistent
formal account of
>>>>>>
>>>>> N-Relations has been long missing. Relations
are so ubiquitious and
>>>>> omnipresent that most people take them for
granted. In a general
>>>>> sense, everything is related to everything.
We are related to the
>>>>> world around us, to other people, to our
country, to our family and
>>>>> children and to ourselves. There are
ontological, logical, natural,
>>>>> physical, mechanical, biological,
psychological,
>>>>> emotional, technological, social, cultural,
moral, sexual, aesthetic,
>>>>> and semiotic relations, to name a few. For
most people, there is no
>>>>> particular problem with most of these
relations, may be, except
>>>>> ontological and semiotic (semantic,
syntactic and pragmatic)
>>>>> relations. However, theorists have been
perpetually puzzled over
>>>>> relations, and they have tried to understand
them theoretically and
>>>>> systematically, but consistent,
machine-readable models of relations
>>>>> have proved extraordinarily difficult to
construct:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "What Organizes the World: N-Relational
Entities":
>>>>>>
>>>>>
http://www.igi-global.com/chapter/reality-universa
l-ontology-knowledge-systems/28313
>>>>>
>>>>>> What is hardly questionable, to be
implemented, the semantic web
>>>>>>
>>>>> indeed requires a unified formal ontology of
relations: UFOR.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Azamat Abdoullaev
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: Frank Manola
>>>>>> To: Alexandre Riazanov
>>>>>> Cc: Semantic Web List
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 1:23 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: relational data as a bona fide
member of the SM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 3, 2011, at 6:22 PM, Alexandre
Riazanov wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Frank
Manola<fmanola@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 3, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Alexandre
Riazanov wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have been asking this sort of questions
for a while and the only
>>>>>>
>>>>> decent answer I know is that
>>>>>
>>>>>> Description Logics only work with unary and
binary predicates
>>>>>>
>>>>> (classes and properties),
>>>>>
>>>>>> although I believe RDF was initially
developed independently from
>>>>>>
>>>>> the DL and OWL work.
>>>>>
>>>>>> RIF and RuleML seem to be going in the
relational direction (see
>>>>>>
>>>>> also the earlier work
>>>>>
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=
10.1.1.48.7623&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>>>>> by Harold Boley), but it is difficult to
break the monopoly
>>>>>
>>>>>> of RDF+OWL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From my point of view, a major reason for
focusing on unary and
>>>>>>
>>>>> binary predicates (the logical forms that
underlie RDF triples) is
>>>>> that it's easier to deal with the problems
of integrating
>>>>> heterogeneous data (a key issue in the
semantic web) if the data is
>>>>> in
>>>>> (or is mapped to being in) that form, as
opposed to data in arbitrary
>>>>> arity relations (for example, with n-aries
you need a schema to
>>>>> interpret any tuples you encounter "in the
wild", otherwise you don't
>>>>> know what the "columns" mean). If you go
back to the period before
>>>>> the "monopoly of RDF+OWL" :-) and look at
the work on integrating
>>>>> heterogeneous relational databases, one of
the major approaches to
>>>>> developing the mappings between the various
relational schemas was by
>>>>> interpreting the various local schemas in
terms of unary and binary
>>>>> relations for just this reason (compound
keys had to be dealt with in
>>>>> this way too, because the same combinations
of columns didn't
>>>>> necessarily constitute the keys in otherwise
corresponding relations
>>>>> in the different local schemas). Mind you,
if you're NOT worried
>>>>> about integrating heterogeneous data, RDF
introduces extra pain of
>>>>> its
>>>>> own (figuring out all those identifiers, for
one thing), but if you
>>>>> ARE worried about integrating heterogenous
data, I think you want
>>>>> those identifiers around.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't quite understand your argument.
Indeed, interoperability is
>>>>>>
>>>>> the target. Syntactic interoperability is
not a problem as long as
>>>>> you
>>>>> use the same or convertible syntaxes.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Semantic interoperability requires shared
understanding of the
>>>>>>
>>>>> identifiers being used, which has nothing to
do with arity.
>>>>> Reinterpreting legacy relational schemas is
a related, but separate
>>>>> issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Binary predicates are often handy to
represent attributes, but it
>>>>>>
>>>>> does not mean n-ary predicates cannot be
helpful in the same
>>>>> (although
>>>>> I could not recall a real example) and other
KR tasks.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me try again, then (although I can't
guarantee I'll be any more
>>>>>>
>>>>> understandable this time!). The original
question (I thought) was
>>>>> why
>>>>> there weren't relational approaches applied
in Semantic-Web-like
>>>>> contexts (where, as you say,
interoperability is the target). I
>>>>> cited
>>>>> the integration of heterogeneous relational
databases to argue that,
>>>>> in this case, where relations were already
being used by all parties,
>>>>> and interoperability was the target, those
doing the integration
>>>>> found
>>>>> that using unaries and binaries helped (I
agree that shared
>>>>> understanding of the identifiers is
necessarily for semantic
>>>>> interoperability, but in RDF+OWL, at least
the identifiers are
>>>>> *there*; those putting the data on the Web
had to create them).
>>>>> All
>>>>> that RDF is doing is starting from the
unaries and binaries. This is
>>>>> not an argument that n-ary relations aren't
helpful in data modeling.
>>>>> Nor is it an argument that you can't do
semantic integration using
>>>>> n-ary relations. I simply think it's
*easier* to do that integration
>>>>> with the RDF approach, and I cited an
historical example as evidence
>>>>> that others have found that as well. Now,
they/we may have simply
>>>>> missed the boat, and if so, someone
(possibly you) will have to come
>>>>> along and show us a better way (I'm
serious). There have certainly
>>>>> been attempts to provide more general KRs
(allowing n-ary predicates)
>>>>> for data/knowledge exchange
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> David Booth, Ph.D.
>>>> http://dbooth.org/
>>>>
>>>> Opinions expressed herein are those of the
author and do not
>>>> necessarily
>>>> reflect those of his employer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
__________________________________________________
_______________
>>> Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>>> Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
>>> 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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Managing Director and Consultant
>> TopQuadrant Limited. Registered in England No.
05614307
>> UK +44 7788 561308
>> US +1 336-283-0606
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
__________________________________________________
_______________
>> Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
>> 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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J
>>
>>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
_______________
> Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
> 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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
_______________
> Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
> 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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J
>
> (015)
==================================================
===========
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx
http://ProgressiveAustin.org (016)
"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own
nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to
stop it must be ours."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
==================================================
=========== (017)
__________________________________________________
_______________
Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
orum/
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?WikiHomePa
ge#nid1J (018)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (019)
|