On 11/09/2012 16:27, doug foxvog wrote:
>>> 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:
>> MOVE
>> SUBJ GEORGE_
>> OBJ BOOK_1
>> BENF MARY_
>> 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. (01)
[GPZ] Yes of course. The particular predicative occurrence shown above
is endowed with a "conceptual label", say "occ1" for simplicity's sake.
This allows us to "reify" this occurrence by using it in a second order
structure, a "binding occurrence" of the type, e.g., (CAUSE occ1 occ2).
"occ2" will be now the conceptual label of another predicative
occurrence, for example (02)
EXPERIENCE
SUBJ MARY_
OBJ (SPECIF birthday_ MARY_)
date-1: 2012-09-06
date-2: (03)
and the global meaning of the binding occurrence - with its own label
"occ3" - will be: George gave the book to Mary because of the Mary's
birthday. At the difference of MARY_, an individual, "birthday_" is a
concept of the "standard" (binary) NKRL's ontology, specific term of
"reified_event" through, among other things, "anniversary_". All this is
more complicate to write down than to use in practice. (04)
>
> 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."] (05)
[GPZ] Well, starting from a given date, Mary will OWN it. (06)
>
> 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 (07)
[GPZ] The "external" name of the roles in NKRL are purely conventional,
you can rename them as giver, given, receiver or whatever if you want -
the problem being, of course, that you can use "giver" only in a
"giving" context. in NKRL, the "meaning" of the roles is supplied by
their practical use within the different "templates", i.e., the general
classes of elementary events from which predicative occurrences like
occ1 and occ2 are created. (08)
>
>> 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. (09)
[GPZ] You have missed my argument. My remark about "reinventing the
wheel" was about the fact of discovering, in September 2012, that
"George gave a book to Mary" can be conveniently expressed by using "roles". (010)
Regards, (011)
G.P. Zarri (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)
|