[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Accommodating legacy software

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:23:04 -0400
Message-id: <e05fcf79566111d38cea62c5258bf618.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Tue, September 11, 2012 13:42, Gian Piero Zarri wrote:
> 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.    (01)

>>> 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
>>> OBJ BOOK_1
>>> 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.    (02)

> [GPZ] Yes of course. The particular predicative occurrence shown above    (03)

I did not consider the phrase "predicative occurrence".    (04)

The meaning of this term evidently is an instance of a template, which
has a predicate as a head.  In this case, MOVE is a predicate, not a
type of event.    (05)

> is endowed with a "conceptual label", say "occ1" for simplicity's sake.    (06)

This reminds me of when FORTRAN was limited to 6 character names.
But this language seems to love 4 characters (yes, i see that CAUSE has
five).    (07)

> This allows us to "reify" this occurrence by using it in a second order
> structure,    (08)

What is being reified is a structure, not the "meaning" of the structure.
Reification allows the inclusion of one structure within another without
requiring the first to be fully stated.    (09)

> a "binding occurrence" of the type, e.g., (CAUSE occ1 occ2).
> "occ2" will be now the conceptual label of another predicative
> occurrence, for example    (010)

> OBJ (SPECIF birthday_ MARY_)
> date-1: 2012-09-06
> date-2:    (011)

> 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.    (012)

>> 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."]    (013)

> [GPZ] Well, starting from a given date, Mary will OWN it.    (014)

Does the MOVE predicate imply that?  My phrase did.    (015)

The English word "give" also covers the cases of lending, and of
merely transferring physical possession (e.g., George gave the book
to Mary to put on the shelf that was to high for him to reach), returning
something borrowed, etc.  Such cases do not imply that Mary_ will OWN
the book.    (016)

>> 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    (017)

> [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.    (018)

Then this would not be a rename.  Such predicates are specializations
of the more general ones.  Each has a different semantics.    (019)

> 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.    (020)

The interesting thing about the occurrence of predicates in NKRL, to the
Ontolog community i would guess, is that beyond the requirement that such
statements need to be possible, that they can be labeled, and thus
referenced within other statements.    (021)

I'm not sure if the meaning of roles being supplied by their practical
use is what i expect from an ontology language.  I would prefer that
the meaning restrict the use, not the other way around.    (022)

>>> BENF = BEN(e)F(iciary) role.    (023)

Is Mary the BENF because she wants the book?   If the OBJ was something
she didn't want, such as an instance of fish guts or a bucket that was just
filled from the contents of an outhouse, would she still be the BENF?    (024)

>>> Why always reinvent the wheel?    (025)

>> 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.    (026)

> [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".    (027)

I must have missed someone claiming that this was a discovery.  Such
roles have been commonly used since at least the 1970s for expressing
individual facts about situations (and their subtypes: processes, events,
actions, static situations, etc.).    (028)

Yes, the NKRL language adopted the common idea of slots/roles.
However, it seems to have created a small set of generic slots.
I have glanced at a few articles about NKRL, but they have not
advertised a method for creating subroles.  It seems to distinguish
predicates (from which "predicative occurrences" can be generated)
and roles.    (029)

-- doug foxvog    (030)

> Regards,
> G.P. Zarri    (031)

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    (032)

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