Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology

["Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Ali,

 

Thanks for your suggestions!  You wrote:

 

I will refrain from commenting on your continual insertion of a very clear political agenda couched as discussions about ontology.

 

I am glad to hear that since I don’t really have a political agenda.

 

I would suggest (again), that self-interest is perhaps not the best starting point for such an analysis. Thus far, your posts seem to be largely based on thinking about self-interest from an economic perspective, and I suspect you might be predicating much on Rational Choice Theory (as exemplified by your assertion that "the best we have is game theory". If you are not, could you clarify?

 

No, I haven’t been specifically motivated by Rational Choice Theory, but the concept sounded intriguing, so I looked it up on Wikipedia.

 

From Wikipedia on “Rational Choice Theory”:

Rational choice theory uses a specific and narrower definition of "rationality" simply to mean that an individual acts as if balancing costs against benefits to arrive at action that maximizes personal advantage.^[4] For example, this may involve kissing someone, cheating on a test, buying a new dress, or committing murder. In rational choice theory, all decisions, crazy or sane, are postulated as mimicking such a "rational" process.

…

In rational choice theory, these costs are only extrinsic or external to the individual rather than being intrinsic or internal. That is, strict rational choice theory would not see a criminal's self-punishment by inner feelings of remorse, guilt, or shame as relevant to determining the costs of committing a crime. In general, rational choice theory does not address the role of an individual's sense of morals or ethics in decision-making. Thus, economics Nobelist Amartya Sen sees the model of people who follow rational choice model as "rational fools."

Because rational choice theory lacks understanding of consumer motivation, some economists restrict its use to understanding business behavior where goals are usually very clear. As Armen Alchian points out, competition in the market encourages businesses to maximize profits (in order to survive). Because that goal is significantly less vacuous than "maximizing utility" and the like, rational choice theory is apt.

It seems that Rational Choice Theory is a good model for those situations in which all the players have transparent motivation (i.e., transparent self interest).  But most of the really difficult choices are not so transparent, and relate to individual value models.  So I would like Self Interest Ontology to deal with some of the softer subjects, such as emotional values of the individual, as well as the more obvious economics of Rational Choice Theory.   

Although models used in rational choice theory are diverse, all assume individuals choose the best action according to unchanging and stable preference functions and constraints facing them. Most models have additional assumptions. Those proponents of rational choice models associated with the Chicago school of economics do not claim that a model's assumptions are a full description of reality, only that good models can aid reasoning and provide help in formulating falsifiable hypotheses, whether intuitive or not.^{[citation needed]}

So RCT is a tool for analyzing choices, but is not complete for making them in the first place, if this explanation is carried to its conclusion.  It isn’t a complete solution to the problem, but it provides insights when the choice to be made can be explained rationally.  Not all such choices can be explained rationally but RCT seems still to provide useful analytical tools. 

In this view, the only way to judge the success of hypotheses is empirical tests.^[4] To use an example from Milton Friedman, if a theory that says that the behavior of the leaves of a tree is explained by their rationality passes the empirical test, it is seen as successful.

I wouldn’t consider leaves as example individual choice makers, though like any biological system, they are based on physical laws ultimately.  Therefore they minimize energy expenditure and apply certain other physical laws which can be implemented in biological systems. 

 

Self interest seems to be far more subtle than just RCT, but RCT is a useful tool to explain choices after the fact, it seems.  Leaves don’t talk each other into taking actions, but people do exert psychological forces of various kinds on each other.  The problem with self interest is that often people are talked into making choices that don’t help them, and even choices that actually hurt them, by statements which are not fully focused on the details of what choices are available, what effects each potential action has, and how to choose the most effective action for an individual. 

 

You continued:

In any event, you asked for a vocabulary of constructs, I'd note that Doug provided exactly such a starting point a couple of months ago.

 

He included a taxonomy of Agents (both individuals and groups), sketched out a partial taxonomy of RelationTypes (how agents might be related to one another), alongside some valences (friendly/opposing), as well as a preliminary set of terms that can be used to represent wants/needs etc. roughly corresponding to Maslow's (or perhaps the updated) hierarchy of needs. 

 

Yes, Doug’s contribution is the best so far to this topic.  However, it assumes knowledge of, and agreement with, present Cyc theories and methods, much more so than I am comfortable in using as the basis for a Self Interest Ontology.  I would like to simplify Doug’s contribution and expand it to cover how each agent perceives self interest.  That is the part I am most concerned with in the first place – the intelligent choices of self interest in any given situation. 

 

What you could do, is use this taxonomy to develop your intuitions about libertarianism, or however you think self-interest ought be represented - i.e. use the terminology he so kindly provided, and begin to make some assertions (axioms?) about what your strand of self-interest is. What are the assumptions you make about self interest? How can this understanding be used to predict human behaviour? etc.

 

In principle, that is correct.  But those questions aren’t askable or answerable (at least not yet) in Doug’s ontology.  Perhaps expansion of that ontology, and elimination of the external references to other knowledge bases such as Cyc, could solve the problem you point out.  Doug’s version, the best so far, still leaves me with too many open questions that seem important to the analysis. 

 

Do you believe people always act in self-interest?  

 

No, I think the model has to include the agent’s PERCEPTION of self interest, not some abstract kind of self interest without the person attached.  I think people often (not always) act in their own perceived self interest, but many other factors keep them from making optimal choices.  They satisfice, as the AI term has come to be applied, because the actual detailed choices and possible actions are simply too complicated to fully appreciate.  In economic situations, people face similar predicaments.  It isn’t possible to COMPLETELY analyze most situations.  Abstractions and satisficing are the best approach to deal with a subject that is too complicated to fully evaluation in 100% detail.  Yet economics is still a useful tool when appropriately applied.  I would like to see Doug’s ontology expanded to the point where it could also be a useful tool for analyzing certain choices and actions in the light of an individual’s value system. 

 

Do you believe that aggregate self-interest leads to a particular end?

 

Actually, I don’t want to consider AGGREGATE self interest because it loses all the information I am trying to study – the choices made by individuals themselves, not by representatives (elected, appointed, or otherwise) of the individuals where motivations are far more murky.  Aggregate self interest is never, or at least seldom, in the self interest of the entire composition of the aggregation.  Someone always loses something and others may gain something, hence the crony aspects of political actions usually outweigh the purported benefits of the recommended action. 

 

Wherever his vocabulary comes up short, you can propose an addition that provides more cover for what you are trying to explicate.

 

Yes, but first I have to figure out which additions” are needed, and what each one contributes to the ontology.

 

Indeed, you could also perhaps extend this work with novel vocabulary to show how it might relate to issues such as economics or governance or whatever you are interested in.

 

Those are very good points, though I don’t know quite how to get a start at doing so.  The first thing I need is a very simple definition of what self interest actually is, how people perceive it, and what degrees of freedom they have in making choices to satisfice it.  Maslow’s values are not enough, IMHO, to do the full job, though they might be some sort of starting point. 

 

Thanks for some interesting suggestions!

-Rich

 

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

---

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ali SH
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 11:19 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology

 

Dear Rich,

 

I will refrain from commenting on your continual insertion of a very clear political agenda couched as discussions about ontology.

 

With regards to the ontology component, Doug wrote and you ask:

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Rich Cooper <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Doug 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. 

and you later write:

 

[RGC] 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. 

 

I would suggest (again), that self-interest is perhaps not the best starting point for such an analysis. Thus far, your posts seem to be largely based on thinking about self-interest from an economic perspective, and I suspect you might be predicating much on Rational Choice Theory (as exemplified by your assertion that "the best we have is game theory". If you are not, could you clarify?

 

In any event, you asked for a vocabulary of constructs, I'd note that Doug provided exactly such a starting point a couple of months ago.

 

He included a taxonomy of Agents (both individuals and groups), sketched out a partial taxonomy of RelationTypes (how agents might be related to one another), alongside some valences (friendly/opposing), as well as a preliminary set of terms that can be used to represent wants/needs etc. roughly corresponding to Maslow's (or perhaps the updated) hierarchy of needs. 

 

What you could do, is use this taxonomy to develop your intuitions about libertarianism, or however you think self-interest ought be represented - i.e. use the terminology he so kindly provided, and begin to make some assertions (axioms?) about what your strand of self-interest is. What are the assumptions you make about self interest? How can this understanding be used to predict human behaviour? etc. Do you believe people always act in self-interest?  Do you believe that aggregate self-interest leads to a particular end? Wherever his vocabulary comes up short, you can propose an addition that provides more cover for what you are trying to explicate.

 

Indeed, you could also perhaps extend this work with novel vocabulary to show how it might relate to issues such as economics or governance or whatever you are interested in.

 

Some thing to consider as well though are:

• Rational Choice Theory doesn't really hold in the real world
• Accounting for imbalances in information, i.e.

• if access to information about a particular topic is restricted, skewed or whatnot (i.e. Faux News), people aren't necessarily in a position to make "self-interested" choices

• Accounting for imbalances in power, i.e.

• a group of 10 companies with a clear agenda can act much more effectively than 100 million individuals - they are more able to project power and pursue their self-interest

• Differing self-interests depending on your role and possible mechanisms for resolving these contradictions, i.e.

• as a human, it is in my self interest that I live on a clean earth
• as the CEO of a chemical plant, it might be in my self interest to make sure that say the EPA doesn't regulate mercury emissions

Of course, I'd note that people aren't always acting out of self-interest, nor do they have demonstrate "self-interest" consistently, in the same way over time - indeed depending on their jobs or other commitments, they may even hold simultaneously contradictory positions . Moreover, people (especially most individuals) certainly rarely act rationally (in the economic sense), especially since access to information and power is not equal as is often assumed in many economic models. Indeed, much of marketing and consumer psychology is predicated on exploiting this fact.

 

Best,

Al

 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________
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
 

 

--


(•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)