ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

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

 To: "[ontolog-forum]" William Frank Thu, 6 Sep 2012 09:49:55 -0400
 On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Andries van Renssen wrote: 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).  This is quite cool.  As to me a simpler example, I imagine a soccer game.  There is a soccer game, with these players playing these roles.  Later on, the same game, different players. The same holds for property value measurements over time. Would be interested to understand this.   Regards, Andries  Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens William Frank Verzonden: 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 b 11 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 related things 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 thing For 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 more detailed 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 as their 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 practice always 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 into collections 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 foxvog Verzonden: woensdag 5 september 2012 6:02Aan: [ontolog-forum]Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software ``` _________________________________________________________________ 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, 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] 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, Andries van Renssen Message not availableRe: [ontolog-forum] Binary versus N-ary relations, Chris Menzel Message not availableRe: [ontolog-forum] Binary versus N-ary relations, William Frank <= Re: [ontolog-forum] Binary versus N-ary relations, Andries van Renssen Re: [ontolog-forum] Binary versus N-ary relations, doug foxvog Message not availableRe: [ontolog-forum] Binary versus N-ary relations, William Frank 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, Andries van Renssen Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software, David Eddy Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software, Kingsley Idehen