ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

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

 To: "[ontolog-forum]" "doug foxvog" Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:34:43 -0400 <45025687166ec7b4c8d6c4857476ab8d.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 ```On Thu, September 6, 2012 06:40, Andries van Renssen wrote: > ... > For example, assume that the thing T that is between A and B on path P is > moving.    (01) > That movement can be described as one (dynamic) higher arity relation.    (02) Can it? You have described features of the object M (a movement); (isa M Movement-TranslationEvent) (primaryObjectMoving M T) (movementConstrainedTo M P) (holdsDuring M (betweenOnPath T A B P)) ; ... if you mean that A & B are on the path. ; If A and B are on alternate sides of the path, e.g., P is ; a north-south alley with building A to its west and building B ; to its east: (holdsDuring M (between P A B)) M would have many other features.    (03) > 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.).    (04) If the instantiated (dynamic) higher arity relation (DHAR) has a number of relations to other things (be they binary or higher-arity themselves), it suggests to me) that it is an object in its own right. Instead of making it an extremely high arity relation (with thousands of arguments for any possible relation that the event could have with other things) why not just define classes of occurrences, and reify any individual occurrence that is to be referenced?    (05) > All occurrences (activities, processes and events) are basically higher > arity relations (interactions between things).    (06) I would disagree. Occurrences are first class objects. Higher (or not) arity relations can describe aspects of such occurrences.    (07) -- doug    (08) > The same holds for property value measurements over time.    (09) > Regards, > > Andries > > > > Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens William Frank > Verzonden: woensdag 5 september 2012 15:29 > Aan: [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 instance > > 5 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 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 Frank > > 413/376-8167 > > > This 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 >    (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) ```
 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 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 Re: [ontolog-forum] Binary versus N-ary relations, Andries van Renssen