[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software

To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:33:34 -0400
Message-id: <CALuUwtAtgy7niU7ToikFw5DC7wMky32TEkOw_aHoHybKf-0yrw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
This is very interesting to me, Doug. 

Most importantly, it seems to me you are pointing out that as a giving event instance, there are an indefinitely large number of attributes we could apply to the event, in addition to identifying the participants in the event in there roles, leading to the fact that the number or roles, (as well the multiplicity of each role) is not predetermined, except by how much or little about the event we are choosing to model.    There  is indefinitely more to giving than the giver, the given, and the recipient, and say, the timestamp boundaries of the event. 

But also as you suggest, "give" does not seem to imply 'move', unless perhaps one defines giving as moving ownership without an exchange in the other direction, and adequate account of give involving many specific relations between other things and this event instance.

I add that "subject" and "object" are far from universal semantic concepts.  They are particular to the grammars of some languages, and they are information poor, and only apply a meaningful semantics to 'subject' when the subject happens to be the proximate cause of the event named by the verb. 
For example, giver and given as roles in the GIVING event type, [or (given the duality of events and relationships) in the GIVEN relationship] can be mapped to languages without subjects and objects, and to any of the three ways in which Tom, the Book, and Mary can be subjects and objects and indirect objects in English, with its highly irregular grammar. And, can be more easily applied to events in which the proximate cause of the event is not also one of the roles in a simple model, such as Tom tripped over the book.  So, it iseems to me that NKRL might have missed some already well oiled wheels, rather than reinventing them.

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:27 AM, doug foxvog <doug@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, September 6, 2012 10:30, Gian Piero Zarri wrote:
> On 06/09/2012 15:28, William Frank wrote:

>> But more generally, an n-ary relation instance is always expressable
>> as n independent role assertions.

>> For example:

>> George gave the book to Mary.

>> There is an instance g of the giving action G. and

>> In g, George played the role of giver, the book played the role of
>> given, and Mary played the role of reciever.

> 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:

> date-1: 2012-09-06-16:30
> date-2:

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.

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."]

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

> BENF = BEN(e)F(iciary) role. Why always reinvent the wheel?

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.

-- 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    (01)

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