On Thu, September 6, 2012 16:39, Andries van Renssen wrote: (01)
> Why is a school district not physical? In my view it is a physical area on
> earth with an (unspecified) height and depth. (02)
In that case, a school district would have a mass. A rock and a clump of
dirt would be part of the school district. If i dig to plant a bush in my
yard,
i am making a hole in the school district. (03)
School districts, in my experience, are defined by boundaries -- and thus
are spatial regions -- they are not defined by mass of certain sorts that
happens to be within those boundaries. (04)
> Physical object (and spatial objects) cannot be located in themselves, (05)
This depends upon the definition of "located in". In some systems,
a "located in" predicate is reflexive. (06)
> but they all can be in (several) locator as well as in located roles,
although
> always in different (individual) relations. (07)
I presume you mean relation statements or "relation instances". (08)
> I am interested in your subtypes of the <being location in> kind of
> relation. (09)
Some OpenCyc subtypes of <located in> are:
aboardTransporter alignedCylinderWithin anchorPointInLineSegment
artifactFoundInLocation basinOfBodyOfWater carriedIn
cavityInteriorRegionOf cellularNetworkCoversRegion
completeOuterLayer connected-SheetTransectsAlong
connectedAlongInside connectedToInside contentOfFreeSpace
cospatial countryOfAddress countyInState countyOfAddress
curveOnSurface damsStream ellipsoidalSection
embeddedCylinderInSheet endPointOfLineSegment equatorOfSpheroid
equipmentOfFacility eventOccursAt exactlyLocatedAt-Spatial
exposureToHarmfulSubstanceOccursAt genericPathway-Complete
genericPathway-Exact greatCircleOfSphere greatEllipseOfEllipsoid
greatEllipseOfSpheroid groupMembersFoundInLocation
groupResidesInRegion groundsOfBuilding hotelInRegion in-Among
in-ContClosed in-ContCompletely in-ContFullOf in-ContGeneric
in-ContOpen in-Held in-ImmersedFully in-Permeates in-Rooted
in-Snugly inRegion inRegion-Underspecified infectingOccursAt
infoPathway-Complete infoPathway-Exact innervates
linesInside-Skinlike localeOfElection localityOfObject
locusOfCellularProcess-Cell locusOfCellularProcess-CellPart
lowestPointInRegion minimumEnvelopeForGeometry
motionPathway-Complete motionPathway-Exact objectFoundInLocation
outerLayer packagedIn parallelOfSpheroid pathInsideRegion
pluggedInto pointOfSale portalPassedThrough processRunningOn
protrudesInto residenceOfOrganization salesTerritoryOfAddress
screwedIn situationLocation smallCircleOfSphere spans-Bridgelike
sphericSection spheroidalSection startPointOfLineSegment sticksInto
sticksInto-2D streetSystemOfArea structureInUrbanArea
suspendedIntaskInsAreaOfOperations teamRepresentsPolity
terminalPointOfLineSegment tourIsOfRegion trajectory-Complete
vertexOfGeometricallyDescribableThing vertexOfLineString
vertexOfPolygon vertexOfPolyhedron waterOfBodyOfWater
whollyLocatedAt-Spatial worksFoundInStructure
In contexts in which a GeopoliticalEntity is considered to be a
GeographicalRegion as well as an Organization more specializations
are available:
cityInState eventOccursInCountry hotelInCity majorCityInState
metropolitanAreaOf placeInCity stateOfAddress territoryOf (010)
> The kind of relation <classification of an individual thing by a kind of
> thing> is semantically different from the kind of relation <classification
> of a kind of thing by a meta kind of thing> as the role players are
> different. (011)
In that each has different restrictions on argument types, yes. (012)
> In the example, the relation <is classified as a> is a phrase for the
> first kind of relation. (013)
OK. That was not clear in the text that Kingsley presented. (014)
> Furthermore, the statement is that all individual things 'shall be'
> classified, whereas that is not required for kinds of things. (015)
This is a rule in your system. Kingsley asked "what is not to like" about
this text snippet. The lack of requirement that kinds of things need not
be classified is something that falls in this category since the lack
of classification limits the type of reasoning that can be performed. (016)
> Kinds of
> things shall not necessarily be classified, but 'shall be' generalized, by
> being defined as subtypes of their supertype(s). (017)
Another rule in your system. (018)
> Therefore, the term 'individual' is an important semantic distinction. (019)
Certainly. (020)
> If we eliminate it the semantic precision would be lost. (021)
As a description of your system, yes. (022)
You are referring to your statement:
>> > This results in a universal basic semantic data structure for the
>> > expression of facts about individual things." (023)
So the point is that your system provides a structure for expressing
facts about individual things, but it does not necessarily provide a
structure for expression of facts about kinds of things. (024)
By eliminating the restriction to facts about individual things,
more can be expressed. In responding to Kingsley's question,
i was stating that i would like the more inclusive definitions
of data structures better. (025)
You also stated: (026)
>> > * 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. (027)
I wanted to generalize this to apply to relations among kinds of
things or between individual things and kinds of things. Your
semantic distinction means that you are not describing these
other types of relations. (028)
-- doug foxvog (029)
> 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. (030)
> I agree that a taxonomy is a hierarchical subtype-supertype network. (031)
> I also agree that each individual thing can (in principle) be classified
> by more than one kind of thing. (032)
> With kind regards,
> Till after my holidays,
> Andries
>
>> -----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. (033)
>> Fine. (034)
>> > For
>> > example, the relation type <is located in> requires a physical object
>> > in a 'locator' role and another physical object in a 'located' role. (035)
>> 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. (036)
>> I would suggest that the example refer to a "spatial object" instead
>> of a "physical object". (037)
>> > * 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. (038)
>> 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). (039)
>> 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
>>
>
> (040)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (041)
|