ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software

 To: "[ontolog-forum]" William Frank Wed, 5 Sep 2012 09:29:15 -0400
 beautifully said,would the following be a gloss applied to the between example:there is a betweeness relation B with respect to the less than relation among integers, in which integers play three roles: the between integer; the below integer, and the above integer. and there is an instance of this relation, b, such that in that instance5 is the below integer in b11 is the above integer in b.10 is the between integer in b,? On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Andries van Renssen wrote: Doug and Kingsley, 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 ). 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. 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. 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. 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 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). 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. 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. Andries -----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 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: ... >>> I believe Data denotes Subject Observation. >>> I believe all observations are comprised of: >>> 1. a subject >>> 2. subject attributes >>> 3. subject attribute values. ... >> One common type of observation is that A is between B and C. >> How would you express this with a single triple?    8)# > I would state that A is between B. A is Between C. Then I would define > the semantics of  the  'Between' predicate  . !?? 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. What semantics does the between predicate have? How about the quaternary predicate, isBetweenOnPath? Can you express the following with triples: (and   (isBetweenOnPath WashingtonDC Maryland Virginia I95)   (not (isBetweenOnPath WashingtonDC Maryland Virginia I495))) -- doug foxvog ... > > Kingsley >> >> -- doug foxvog _________________________________________________________________ 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 -- William Frank413/376-8167This email is confidential and proprietary, intended for its addressees only.It may not be distributed to non-addressees, nor its contents divulged, without the permission of the sender. ``` _________________________________________________________________ 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) ```
 Current Thread Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software, (continued) Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software, Andries van Renssen Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software, doug foxvog Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software, Kingsley Idehen Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software, doug foxvog Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software, doug foxvog Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software, Kingsley Idehen Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software, Andries van Renssen Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software, doug foxvog Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software, Andries van Renssen Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software, doug foxvog Message not availableRe: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software, William Frank <= Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software, doug foxvog Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software, William Frank Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software, Gian Piero Zarri Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software, William Frank Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software, Andries van Renssen Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software, doug foxvog Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software, William Frank Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software, John F Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software, Gian Piero Zarri Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software, William Frank