From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 5:12 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Cc: Hassan Aït-Kaci
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: MOVED: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
Ed,
I'm using the ontology of my KR book.
> Actually, John, the last observation is slightly inaccurate. 'give' is a
> predicate. A is not connected to 'give' but rather to some "event" x...
In that ontology, 'give' is a verb in English. With capital letters, Give is a concept type, which is a subtype of Act.
The canonical graph for Act, has the following form:
[Act]->(Agent)->[Animate]
This graph is inherited by all subtypes of Act, each of which may add further links and restrictions.
When translated to predicate calculus, this graph maps to the following formula:
(Ex:Act)(Ey:Animate)Agent(x,y)
In English, you can read the graph or the formula as
"There is an instance of Act x, there is an instance of Animate y, and x has y as agent."
I summarize the KR ontology at http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/index.htm
The canonical graph for Give adds two more relations, Theme and Recipient.
John