ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software

To: <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Andries van Renssen" <andries.vanrenssen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 23:08:46 +0200
Message-id: <04ca01cd8c73$ce4ef0a0$6aecd1e0$@vanrenssen@gellish.net>
Doug,    (01)

I think I was unclear and that caused misunderstanding.
I was thinking about entities with attributes as "free" n-tuples. They are a
pain for data integration.
And indeed "free" triples are also a pain.    (02)

When we standardize on a Formal English language, then the kinds of
relations are not free (for those who adopt the language).
That holds for representation of higher order relations as collections of
binary relations, as well as for their representation in 'function with
arguments' form.    (03)

The point I wanted to make is that a tabular implementation of collections
of binary relations can be done with one standard table. That provides a
simple universal data structure (grammar). I consider that an advantage of a
representation as collections of binary relations.
That is indeed not a semantic issue.
(I mentioned other advantages in another mail)    (04)

This was my last mail before my holidays.
With kind regards,
Andries    (05)


> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens doug foxvog
> Verzonden: woensdag 5 september 2012 23:08
> Aan: [ontolog-forum]
> Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software
> 
> On Wed, September 5, 2012 09:19, Andries van Renssen wrote:
> 
> > I am indeed convinced that free n-tuples are a pain, because
> everybody is
> > free to create his own n-tuples
> 
> Everybody is free to create her own triples as well.
> 
> > and there is no common convention to interpret them.
> 
> In XML.  FWIW, RDF does have lists which are n-tuples.
> 
> Languages that use n-tuples do have conventions.
> 
> > The relations between the elements in the tuples are not
> > explicit, neither are the roles that those elements play in those
> > relations.
> 
> These merely need to be defined.  Look at how Cyc does it.
> 
> > My research is oriented towards a common formal language and
> > a universal data structure.
> > I think that triples play an important role in that, but an
> implementation
> > in triples make it very verbose and difficult to read. I converged
> towards
> > a
> > standard n-tuple (not necessarily ordered) that can be represented in
> a
> > standard table in which many elements are optional or can have a
> default
> > value.
> 
> Tuples can certainly be placed in tables.  Triples and quads often are.
> This is a storage mechanism,not a semantic issue.
> 
> -- doug foxvog
> 
> > That standard n-tuple forms the Gellish Data Table that is the
> universal
> > data structure that I mentioned in my previous mail as being
> described in
> > the document "Definition of Universal Semantic Databases and Data
> Exchange
> > Messages" on http://www.gellish.net/downloads/category/2-english.html
> .
> >
> > With kind regards,
> > Andries
> >
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens Michael
> Brunnbauer
> > Verzonden: woensdag 5 september 2012 14:06
> > Aan: [ontolog-forum]
> > Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software
> >
> >
> > Hello Kingsley,
> >
> > I think doug really has a point here. Imagine how simple the
> conversion of
> > a
> > RDB to RDF would be if we had n-ary relations. Of course the
> usefulness
> > of such an 1:1 conversion is doubtful but the entry threshold would
> be
> > lower.
> >
> > Am I right that you are OK with quick and simple conversions to RDF
> where
> > the
> > real value is added via mappings later ? Some of your data
> integration
> > tools
> > probably work this way.
> >
> > I have wondered about the restriction to triples publicly several
> times
> > and
> > never got an answer about the reasons for it. Was it for simplicity
> of
> > implementation ? Do we really know that n-tuples would be a pain ?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Michael Brunnbauer
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 07:22:56AM -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> >> On 9/5/12 12:02 AM, doug foxvog wrote:
> >> >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?
> >>
> >> And that isn't what I was conveying to you. Basically, at what point
> did
> >> you indicate we where dealing with typed literals? You said A
> between B
> >> and B between C.  Why on earth should I assume A, B, and C are typed
> >> literals? Just because you used the literal 'Between' in some kind
> of
> >> fuzzy context?
> >>
> >> RDF is pretty clear about the semantics for typed literals.
> >> >
> >> >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)))
> >>
> >> I think we are now talking past ourselves.
> >>
> >> If you have some alternative to RDF that works, just point me to it.
> I
> >> think that's the best use of our respective time at this juncture.
> >>
> >> Kingsley
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >-- 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
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Kingsley Idehen
> >> Founder & CEO
> >> OpenLink Software
> >> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> >> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> >> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> >> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> >> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> > --
> > ++  Michael Brunnbauer
> > ++  netEstate GmbH
> > ++  Geisenhausener Straße 11a
> > ++  81379 München
> > ++  Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
> > ++  Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89
> > ++  E-Mail brunni@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > ++  http://www.netestate.de/
> > ++
> > ++  Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
> > ++  USt-IdNr. DE221033342
> > ++  Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
> > ++  Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>     (06)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (07)

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