On Thu, September 6, 2012 10:30, Gian Piero Zarri wrote:
> On 06/09/2012 15:28, William Frank wrote: (01)
>> But more generally, an n-ary relation instance is always expressable
>> as n independent role assertions. (02)
>> For example: (03)
>> George gave the book to Mary. (04)
>> There is an instance g of the giving action G. and (05)
>> In g, George played the role of giver, the book played the role of
>> given, and Mary played the role of reciever. (06)
> Yes, and this is simply expressed in NKRL - an n-ary representation
> language, see http://www.springer.com/computer/ai/book/978-1-84800-077-3
> - as a "predicative occurrence" (instance of a standard NKRL template)
> like: (07)
> MOVE
> SUBJ GEORGE_
> OBJ BOOK_1
> BENF MARY_
> date-1: 2012-09-06-16:30
> date-2: (08)
This example seems to show the reification of an instance of MOVE,
and a few binary relation independently providing information about
that instance. Additional binary assertions could be made about
the event (the speed of the motion, its trajectory, the form of the
motion (sliding, being handed, being tossed, being posted), etc.
If the reified MOVE were named, assertions could be added at a
separate time from when these were stated. (09)
Assumptions were made in translating "gave" to "MOVE". The word
"gave" would also cover a transfer of ownership with no movement
of the book. [Mary is reading George's book. George says, "you like
that book? You can have it."] (010)
The slots (SUBJ, OBJ, BENF, date-1) are very generic, evidently relying
upon the type of the instance (a MOVE) to give them more specific
semantics. William's suggested slots (giver, given, receiver) are less
generic, and better suited to the verb "give". I would prefer using more
specific relations on encoding the meaning of the statement (performedBy,
providerOfMotiveForce, fromPossesser, toPossesser, primaryObjectMoving,
objectOfPossessionTransfer, dateOfEvent), recognizing that if one is
parsing NL, the more generic ones are necessary (011)
> BENF = BEN(e)F(iciary) role. Why always reinvent the wheel? (012)
Of course, NKRL was re-inventing the wheel, as such generic slots (and
more specific ones) were in use before NKRL was invented in the mid 1990s. (013)
-- doug foxvog (014)
> Regards,
>
>
> Gian Piero ZARRI
>
>>
>>
>> Now, just because one CAN reduce n-aries to binaries, this does not
>> mean it is a good thing to do, except to acheive a specific purpose.
>> The lack of attention to purposes seems to me to be the biggest
>> problem with "modern" logical education. Leads to unsaid ssumptions.
>>
>>
>>
>> -- doug foxvog
>>
>> > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Andries van Renssen <
>> > andries.vanrenssen@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:andries.vanrenssen@xxxxxxxxxxx>> 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 <is between on
>> path>).
>> >> 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>
>> >> [mailto: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
>> <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
>> <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
>>
>
> (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
|