|To:||mclange@xxxxxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|From:||William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Mon, 20 May 2013 09:06:14 -0400|
The goal of elimintating domain specific relationships in an ontology is |
to ***nominalize or reify*** all the domain-specific relations, along with everything else that is of substance to the ontology, so that every concept we want to model is on an equal footing with all the others,
and to ****separate*** these domain specific relationship concepts from the logical underpinnings of the language.
Just as John Sowa does in a related response.
Use *nouns*, not relations, for domain specific relationships
'is the sister of'
Mary is the sister of John
Sisterhood has the role of being sister
Sisterhood has the role of has-sister
there is a sisterhood in which
Mary plays the role of being sister
John plays the role of has-sister
This does not *diminish* the importance of domain specific relationships, it rather *increases* their importance and the richness with which they can be analysed.
it also puts sisterhood, personhood, height, weight, childhood (mary is the child of susan and george) all on the same footing. They are all predicates. The fact that each of these take a different number of arguments is secondary. Attributes, similarly, like height and weight, are now also things that are not burried inside 'entities', they are first class citizens of the domain ontology, just as are childhood and personhood.
Using this approach to describe a domain onltology is is more neutral as to the solution language, be it an E/R or equivelentiny entity-attribute-relationship based OO programming language, or a functional language. It removes the impedence mismatch between relational databases and columnar databases, by providing a deep structure applicable to both.
Using this approach separates issues concerning logical underpinnings on the ontology,
is described by
is a kind of
complex and domain problematic as they may be,
from the domain specific concepts
catalyst has the role conversion catalyzed
catalyst has the role caltylizer
there is a catalyst such that
MTHFR plays the catylizer role in that catalyst
the logical particles are the only things that show up as 'lines', which are thereby diminished in our ability to make assertions about them. Everything domain specific is in a BOX, putting the needed spotlight right on it.
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:02 AM, matthew lange <mclange@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
MatthewLange || has less ontology experience than || most active ontolog list subscribers
This email is confidential and proprietary, intended for its addressees only.
It may not be distributed to non-addressees, nor its contents divulged,
without the permission of the sender.
_________________________________________________________________ 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>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] 2nd CfP: OpenMath workshop at CICM (10 July, Bath, UK), submission deadline 7 June, Ray Martin|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] is-part-of: a really, really, bad practice?, William Frank|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] is-part-of: a really, really, bad practice?, matthew lange|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] is-part-of: a really, really, bad practice?, William Frank|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|