Azamat,
Re: At the level of language, natural or artificial, the {ed. Marriage}
term/concept could be virtually expressed in infinite ways. But still, it's a
binary relation. (01)
Binary relation between what? (02)
And, can we make statements about that binary relation (i.e. when it was true)? (03)
-Cory (04)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of AzamatAbdoullaev
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 2:38 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] N-RELATIONs: Formal Ontology, Semantic Web and
Smart Applications (05)
"Expressing the verb phrase "x isMarriedTo y" or "x hasSpouse y" or
"Marriage(x,y) are saying the SAME THING, it is the same fact expressed in a
different way - in some cases as relations and some cases reified. I submit
that to understand how the different ways we express information are related we
have to understand concepts at this level." (06)
That's the job ontology to identify the nature of concepts or the real semanics
of terms, i.e., what real things they signify, denote and connote; or mean,
represent and sense. Indeed, "marriage" denotes a relationship, a spousal
relationship, as its primary meaning, its barest definition, with all its
possible types: as common-law marriage, marriage of convenience, plygamy. But
it connotes all other things associated with it, married couple, man and wife,
wedding or marriage ceremony, and many other associations. At the level of
language, natural or artificial, the term/concept could be virtually expressed
in infinite ways. But still, it's a binary relation. (07)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cory Casanave" <cory-c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>; "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] N-RELATIONs: Formal Ontology, Semantic Web and
Smart Applications (08)
> Doug,
> Whenever I see properties with complex verb phrases like "
> isCurrentlyMarriedTo ", this is a red flag that indicates that
> multiple concepts are being conflated. Lets say this was expressing X
> isCurrentlyMarriedTo Y. There are multiple possible facts and
> representations here:
> * X is married
> * Y is married
> * The spouse of X is Y
> * X hasSpouse Y
> * X is married to Y
> * The above situation currently exists
> * The spouse of Y is X
> * There is a Marriage, in which X and Y are spouses
> * M exists now.
> * X hasSpouse Y
> * Y hasSpouse X
>
> Perhaps X is the male in a traditional marriage.
>
> * X isHusbandOf Y
> * Y isWifeOf X
>
> Etc, Etc.
>
> Notice how every one of the above statements can imply the existence
> of a marriage in which X and Y are playing the role Spouse and in some
> cases Wife and Husband (kinds of spouses with additional constraints).
>
> The problem with this is that these made-up verb phrases are black
> boxes that become difficult to relate to the other made-up verb
> phrases. I suggest we have to stop inventing new "words" and make
> more of the concepts we have. We should also be able to relate very
> common concepts like "currently" to anything that may have a time
> dimension and not imbed such concepts in these made- up phrases. (I
> have no problem with making real composite concepts that are
> compositions, but we should then understand their parts). To do this
> we much be able to use the "relations" (of any granularity) as subjects of
>such relations.
>
> If there is a proper representation of the terms and concepts of a
> complex concept like marriage these can be properly related.
> "Married", "Spouse", "Husband", "Wife", etc. are all only meaningful
> within the context of marriage. Expressing the verb phrase "x isMarriedTo y"
>or "x hasSpouse y"
> or "Marriage(x,y) are saying the SAME THING, it is the same fact
> expressed in a different way - in some cases as relations and some
> cases reified. I submit that to understand how the different ways we
> express information are related we have to understand concepts at this level.
>
> -Cory
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug
> foxvog
> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 11:24 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>;<semantic-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/2006Apr/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-universal-ontology-know
>>>>>> l
>>>>>> edge-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&;
>>>>>> r ep=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-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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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-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
>>
>>
>
>
> =============================================================
> 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
> (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|