I'll be interested in Doug's response to your question. I've made note of
this issue in past emails to this forum regarding the notion of "conceptual
reality" being distinct from physical reality. A school district or police
precinct doesn't exist in physical reality - there are no physical
phenomenologies that can be used to "detect" or "sense" such an object.
Sure, such a conceptual object can be mapped to some geospatial extent -
although some "districts" might not be geospatial at all - but evidence for
its existence is manifest only on paper (or cyberspace), and can be changed
on a (institutional) whim. It is a creation of society, and no physical
entity is directly affected or modified in any way by its creation. (01)
Hans (02)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andries van
Renssen
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 4:40 PM
To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx; '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures (03)
Doug, (04)
Why is a school district not physical? In my view it is a physical area on
earth with an (unspecified) height and depth.
Physical object (and spatial objects) cannot be located in themselves, but
they all can be in (several) locator as well as in located roles, although
always in different (individual) relations. (05)
I am interested in your subtypes of the <being location in> kind of
relation. (06)
The kind of relation <classification of an individual thing by a kind of
thing> is semantically different from the kind of relation
thing> <classification
of a kind of thing by a meta kind of thing> as the role players are
different.
In the example, the relation <is classified as a> is a phrase for the first
kind of relation.
Furthermore, the statement is that all individual things 'shall be'
classified, whereas that is not required for kinds of things. Kinds of
things shall not necessarily be classified, but 'shall be' generalized, by
being defined as subtypes of their supertype(s).
Therefore, the term 'individual' is an important semantic distinction.
If we eliminate it the semantic precision would be lost. (07)
In the other case of the use of 'individual' the sentence was taken out of
contexts, because the original text talks about two basic semantic
structures, one for facts about individual things and another for facts
about kinds of things. So also here the term 'individual' marks an essential
semantic distinction. (08)
I agree that a taxonomy is a hierarchical subtype-supertype network. (09)
I also agree that each individual thing can (in principle) be classified by
more than one kind of thing. (010)
With kind regards,
Till after my holidays,
Andries (011)
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Namens doug foxvog
> Verzonden: donderdag 6 september 2012 7:29
> Aan: [ontolog-forum]
> Onderwerp: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures
>
> On Wed, September 5, 2012 12:47, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
> > What's not to like about this excerpt:
> >
> > "In its simplest form, this is a structure that is also supported by
> > technologies, such as _RDF_ and _OWL_. However, a semantic model
> > includes the following semantic extensions that support an improved
> > computer interpretation of such sentences and an improved
> computerized
> > verification of semantic correctness:
>
> Fine.
>
> > * Each kind of relation has a modeled definition. Those semantic
> > definitions of the relation type includes the definition of the
> required
> > kinds of roles and the allowed kinds of players of such roles.
>
> Fine.
>
> > For
> > example, the relation type <is located in> requires a physical
> > object
> in
> > a 'locator' role and another physical object in a 'located' role.
>
> There are many kinds of "is located in" relations which are useful to
> tease apart. A more useful, more generic, form would require a
> spatial object in both the 'locator' and 'located' role. Non-physical
> spatial objects (such as school districts or police precincts) could
> be in either the 'locator' or 'located' role with such a predicate.
>
> I would suggest that the example refer to a "spatial object" instead
> of a "physical object".
>
> > * Each individual thing is classified by a kind of thing, because
> > the meaning of a relation between individual things can only be
> interpreted
> > correctly when each related individual thing is classified, as well
> as
> > the roles they play and the relation they have.
>
> I would strike the word "individual", since kinds of things (e.g.,
> CanusLupus)
> can also be classified by kinds of (meta) things (e.g.,
> BiologicalSpecies).
>
> I would also clarify this by noting that each thing can be classified
> by one or more kinds of things.
>
> > * The kinds of things are defined by at least a relation with their
> > supertype kinds of things,
>
> Fine.
>
> > thus forming a taxonomy of concepts (a
>
> The word "taxonomy" suggests a tree structure. This should be
> clarified to make clear that a directed acyclic graph is a valid
> specialization hierarchy.
>
> > specialization hierarchy, also called a subtype-supertype hierarchy).
> > This is necessary for the interpretation of the meaning of the
> > classifiers (city, tower, and 'is located in', as well as 'locator'
> and
> > 'located').
>
> > This results in a universal basic semantic data structure for the
> > expression of facts about individual things."
>
> Again, i'd strike the word "individual".
>
> -- doug foxvog
>
> > Source: http://www.gellish.net/topics/semantic-modelling.html .
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
|