Doug and Kingsley, (01)
In any relation (of any arity) the related things play roles of different
kinds that are specific for the kind of relation.
The semantics of the kind of relation depends on the roles that the related
things play in the relation.
An explicit specification of roles is required to define the semantics. This
is independent of the sequence of arguments in an expression.
If you don't make those roles explicit, then you have find an alternative,
such as the sequence of the arguments (as in <is between on path>). Their
sequence becomes a pseudo specification of the kinds of roles in the
definition of the meaning of the relation.
Furthermore, the inverse expression has a different sequence of arguments,
and is also a valid expression of the same fact.
Therefore, semantically it is purer to explicitly specify the kinds of
roles. (02)
Therefore, a basic semantic structure for the expressions of facts could be:
* kind of relation - kind of role - related thing
For an n-ary relation you need n such expressions. (03)
The form
* related thing - kind of relation - related thing
is just a short cut for a pair of such expressions, in which the kinds of
roles are assumed to be known from the definition of the kinds of relation.
This short cut is only suitable for binary relations and needs a mechanism
to determine which role is played by the left hand thing and right hand
thing respectively. (04)
A semantic model of the definition of a kind of relation requires even more
detailed relations.
Such a model requires the specification of which kinds of roles are required
by which kind of relation and which kinds of things may play such a role.
This implies expressions such as:
* kind of relation - required played - kind of role
* kind of role - required player - kind of thing (05)
Note that the individual relations and roles are not yet explicit in these
expressions. The basic semantic structures that I developed includes also
the individual roles and relations and allows for the short cut expressions
(see http://www.gellish.net/topics/semantic-modelling.html). (06)
Each of these triples requires the expression of auxiliary facts, such as
their intention (illocutionary force), author, dates, context, etc.
In my view it is therefore not a question whether facts can be expressed in
triples, but whether triples are a suitable structure when we in practice
always model in collections of triples. (07)
The Gellish Data Table is a universal structure for all these kinds of
expressions, including the expression of auxiliary facts. That table is an
alternative to RDF (with some creativity it can be converted into
collections of triples if you like). It is described in the document
"Definition of Universal Semantic Databases and Data Exchange Messages" on
http://www.gellish.net/downloads/category/2-english.html. (08)
Andries (09)
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens doug foxvog
Verzonden: woensdag 5 september 2012 6:02
Aan: [ontolog-forum]
Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software (010)
On Tue, September 4, 2012 17:02, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 9/4/12 3:41 PM, doug foxvog wrote:
>> On Tue, September 4, 2012 12:34, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
... (011)
>>> I believe Data denotes Subject Observation.
>>> I believe all observations are comprised of:
>>> 1. a subject
>>> 2. subject attributes
>>> 3. subject attribute values. (012)
...
>> One common type of observation is that A is between B and C.
>> How would you express this with a single triple? 8)# (013)
> I would state that A is between B. A is Between C. Then I would define
> the semantics of the 'Between' predicate . (014)
!??
Let's explore this:
(and
(between 10 5 11)
(between 10 4 11)
(between 10 6 11)
(between 10 7 11))
Using the KI translator this becomes:
AND
10 is between 5
10 is between 11
10 is between 4
10 is between 11
10 is between 6
10 is between 11
10 is between 7
10 is between 11. (015)
What semantics does the between predicate have? (016)
How about the quaternary predicate, isBetweenOnPath?
Can you express the following with triples: (017)
(and
(isBetweenOnPath WashingtonDC Maryland Virginia I95)
(not (isBetweenOnPath WashingtonDC Maryland Virginia I495))) (018)
-- doug foxvog
...
>
> Kingsley
>>
>> -- doug foxvog (019)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (020)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (021)
|