Dear Doug,
You wrote:
If you could boil down the
claims of this early Libertarian and critic of
the New Deal into a formal
set of assertions stated in a logical language
that would be a good
foundation for a Libertarian "micro-theory" ontology.
The set of relations and
types used by such assertions would be useful in a more general economics
ontology.
RGC:> That is an interesting idea! Do you
have any suggestions as to what relations and types you think would be useful
there? Just having a vocabulary of such logical constructs might help use
explore the issue in more depth. Most of the discussion so far quickly
descends into muddy personal issues instead of staying with the economics of
the debate. If you could clarify the real issues in some way, that would
be very, very useful.
Does Henry Hazlitt's book
explain why it is in the self-interest of the
Republicans to do what is
necessary to ensure that the US
economy does not improve before the November 2012 election so that they have a
better chance of gaining control of the Senate and presidency?
RGC:> No, it doesn’t, but it SHOULD delve
into how self interest (such as you describe above) leads individuals and
groups to practice destructive policies (like seeking to limit the economy) for
purely selfish purposes (like Republican hegemony in the 2012 elections).
The best we have so far is game theory to explain the
behavior of small groups of individuals – not much more than two. Perhaps
your relations and types suggestion would be useful in explaining a lot of self
interest actions. If you feel inclined to propose any that could be very useful.
Thanks,
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug foxvog
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 8:37 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self
Interest Ontology
If you could boil down the claims of this early
Libertarian and critic of
the New Deal into a formal set of assertions stated in
a logical language
that would be a good foundation for a Libertarian
"micro-theory" ontology.
The set of relations and types used by such assertions
would be useful in
a more general economics ontology.
Does Henry Hazlitt's book explain why it is in the
self-interest of the
Republicans to do what is necessary to ensure that the
US
economy does not
improve before the November 2012 election so that they
have a better
chance of gaining control of the Senate and
presidency?
-- doug foxvog
On Sat, November 5, 2011 14:31, Rich Cooper said:
> Dear Self Interested Ontologists,
>
> 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:
>
>
http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-
> lesson/
>
> 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.
>
> -Rich
>
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>
> -----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
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
>> 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.
>
> This is a useful case for reifying assertions.
>
> 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)
>
> -- doug foxvog
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
==================================================
> ===========
> doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://ProgressiveAustin.org
>
> "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.
> ==================================================
> ===========
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
> _______________
> 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-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
>
>
=============================================================
doug foxvog
doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org
"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.
=============================================================
_________________________________________________________________
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