[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Chris Menzel <chris.menzel@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 15:40:10 -0500
Message-id: <CAO_JD6MGaR5T06suUem3VRTL0naj=zgKtoPxwhoJ0ih4y9hGgA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Andries van Renssen <andries.vanrenssen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Your statement that occurrences cannot be higher arity relations, because
they are first class objects implies that you see an opposition between
'first class' objects and occurrences.
I don't know what 'first class objects' are, and I don't see why higher
arity relations cannot be first class objects.

As many ontolog-forum members will know, this idea lies at the heart of the semantics of Common Logic and (as a historical consequence) RDF. In Common Logic, there is just one domain of objects. Some of those objects can be identified with relations, but everything is a "first-class citizen".
Nijssen introduced the
concept 'objectified relations' for such a thing. They are relations and
they are 'objects in their own right'. Relations with relations should not
be forbidden.

Well, the idea goes back a good deal farther than Nijssen, although he was probably the first to introduce the idea into his particular community.

Chris Menzel

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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>