ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [ontolog-forum] Binary versus N-ary relations

 To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" "Andries van Renssen" Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:40:27 +0200 <044101cd8c1c\$090248d0\$1b06da70\$@vanrenssen@gellish.net>
 William, Nicely formulated.The _expression_ of higher arity relations by a collection of binary involvement relations (between the N-ary relation and the various ‘involved things’) has other advantages above its modeling as one higher arity relation.Its main advantage is that it enables to describe that each role player can change, while it still remains the same relation. For example, assume that the thing T that is between A and B on path P is moving.That movement can be described as one (dynamic) higher arity relation.Modeling this as a higher order relation that has binary relations with involved things, means that there is one (dynamic) higher arity relation that has a number of non-changing binary ‘involvement relations’ with ‘involved things’ and one binary relation that is described by a sequence of relations to describe the movement (e.g. as located in P1 at T1, in P2 at T2, in P3 at T3, etc.). All occurrences (activities, processes and events) are basically higher arity relations (interactions between things).The same holds for property value measurements over time. Regards,Andries Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens William FrankVerzonden: woensdag 5 september 2012 15:29Aan: [ontolog-forum]Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software 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 differentkinds that are specific for the kind of relation.The semantics of the kind of relation depends on the roles that the relatedthings play in the relation.An explicit specification of roles is required to define the semantics. Thisis 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 ). Theirsequence becomes a pseudo specification of the kinds of roles in thedefinition 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 ofroles.Therefore, a basic semantic structure for the expressions of facts could be:* kind of relation - kind of role - related thingFor an n-ary relation you need n such expressions.The form* related thing - kind of relation - related thingis just a short cut for a pair of such expressions, in which the kinds ofroles 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 mechanismto determine which role is played by the left hand thing and right handthing respectively.A semantic model of the definition of a kind of relation requires even moredetailed relations.Such a model requires the specification of which kinds of roles are requiredby 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 thingNote that the individual relations and roles are not yet explicit in theseexpressions. The basic semantic structures that I developed includes alsothe 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 astheir intention (illocutionary force), author, dates, context, etc.In my view it is therefore not a question whether facts can be expressed intriples, but whether triples are a suitable structure when we in practicealways model in collections of triples.The Gellish Data Table is a universal structure for all these kinds ofexpressions, including the _expression_ of auxiliary facts. That table is analternative to RDF (with some creativity it can be converted intocollections of triples if you like). It is described in the document"Definition of Universal Semantic Databases and Data Exchange Messages" onhttp://www.gellish.net/downloads/category/2-english.html.Andries-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens doug foxvogVerzonden: woensdag 5 september 2012 6:02Aan: [ontolog-forum]Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy softwareOn 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxShared 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxShared 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, 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] Binary versus N-ary relations, Andries van Renssen <= Re: [ontolog-forum] Binary versus N-ary relations, doug foxvog Re: [ontolog-forum] Binary versus N-ary relations, William Frank Re: [ontolog-forum] Binary versus N-ary relations, doug foxvog Message not availableRe: [ontolog-forum] Binary versus N-ary relations, doug foxvog Re: [ontolog-forum] Binary versus N-ary relations, Andries van Renssen Re: [ontolog-forum] Binary versus N-ary relations, doug foxvog Re: [ontolog-forum] Binary versus N-ary relations, Chris Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Binary versus N-ary relations, doug foxvog Message not availableRe: [ontolog-forum] Binary versus N-ary relations, Chris Menzel Message not availableRe: [ontolog-forum] Binary versus N-ary relations, William Frank