[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] On dyads and triads

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 01:02:40 -0400
Message-id: <b5a8afc546b6d5817d4e573a20fd1ebe.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Fri, March 29, 2013 17:48, Simon Spero wrote:
> ... if I were to give your argument proper consideration today, or
> alternatively, if  here and now I were to give proper consideration to
> your argument, I would possibly find in that world
> the logical form of my action to be:    (01)

> (and
>       (Giving #$Event1)
>       (and (Consideration #$Consideration1)
>               (proper #$Consideration1))
>       (Argument #$Argument1)
>        (giver #$Event1 "SimonSpero")
>        (recipient #$Event1 #$Argument1)    (02)

No.  The phrase "give consideration to" (when not referring to financial
consideration) does not refer to #$Giving.  It is merely an alternate
way of writing "considers" that, because it is grammatically structured
differently, allows different sorts of modifiers.    (03)

>        (gift #$Event1 #$Consideration1)
>        (dateOfEvent #$Event1 "March 29th 2013")
>        (locationOfEvent #$Event1 "North Carolina, USA"))    (04)

> As Davidson notes in TLFAS (following Kenny), if events are not reified,
> specifying the time of the giving would require a four place predicate;
> adding the location makes it a five place relationship.    (05)

Of course.   One should reifiy events a la Davidson to be able to refer
to them.    (06)

There is no reason obvious reason to create the (straw man) quintary
relation you present below.  But, if that were the format of a data base
table, such a predicate might be the most direct way to encode the
table directly, letting the semantic system make the appropriate
conclusions.    (07)

> There is no obvious relationship that would allow one to infer from:
> (giving "SimonSpero" #$Consideration #$Argument "March 29th 2013"
>"North Carolina, USA")
> that someone in North Carolina gave proper consideration to an argument.    (08)

Maybe not an obvious relationship, but there is a way (if you exclude the
modifier "proper" -- data not given in the example).    (09)

If, for the purpose of analysis we accept this as a giving, and a quintary
predicate were defined such that (arg1Isa giving NameOfPerson)
(arg2Isa giving ObjectType) (arg3Isa giving ObjectType)
(arg4Isa giving DateString)  (arg5Isa giving NameOfGeopoliticalEntity),
and rules made the semantics of this:
        (isa ?GIVE Giving)
        (isa ?GIVER Person)
        (nameString ?GIVER "SimonSpero")
        (giver ?GIVE ?GIVER)
        (isa ?GIFT Consideration)     ; Arg 2
        (gift ?GIVE ?GIFT)
        (isa ?RECIPIENT Argument)  ; Arg 3
        (recipient ?GIFT ?RECIPIENT)
        (isa ?DATE CalendarDate)
        (dateStringOfDate ?DATE "March 29th 2013")
        (dateOfEvent ?GIFT ?DATE)
        (isa ?GEO (GeopolitcalEntityNamedFn "North Carolina, USA"))
        (eventOccursAt ?GIFT (TerritoryFn ?GEO))))
then, if the system had a matching namestring for #$NorthCarolina-State,
then the system could conclude that some person gave an instance of
#$Consideration to some instance of #$Argument and that the event
occurred in the territory of #$NorthCarolina-State.    (010)

> Let alone that he did so reluctantly, facing towards a white dog.    (011)

Since that info isn't given, that could not be concluded.    (012)

> Other than notational convenience, why favor one  particular triad over
> all possible others,
> if all other attributes of the action must be predicated
> of a reification of that triad?    (013)

In this case, the intrinsic triad is the minimum information needed to
specify what happened:    (014)

+ Juan gave money to Pekka.
* Juan gave money.
* Juan gave to Pekka.
* Juan gave.
* Gave money to Pekka.
* Gave money.
* Gave to Pekka.
* Gave.    (015)

That is why that triad is favored.  That does not mean that an
ontology language must encode giving using a ternary predicate.    (016)

Except for the first sentence, context is necessary to make sense
out of these statements.  Adding additional information about the
event does not help:
* Juan gave to Pekka on March 29th 2013 in North Carolina.    (017)

However, encoding a mathematical equation or a data format
using only binary predicates requires complexity that elucidates
nothing.    (018)

-- doug foxvog    (019)

> Simon
> *Cierce words might differ.    (020)

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    (021)

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