|Date:||Mon, 20 May 2013 16:43:23 -0700|
Twenty "No Domain" Properties. The examples generally reflect the class of the subject, i.e. the domain of the property. (For example, is a kind of suggests the triple's subject is of class Kind; and is the datatype of suggest the triple's subject is of class Datatype; andis a role in suggests it's of class Role; and so on). This "is a X of" is not more informative than just
(X) of Something where (X) is an instance of class X
Implied is these properties are each without domain. However I wonder about many eg is a datatype for, a property which likely is of domain Datatype; and plays the role in, of domain Role), implication being the class of the subject is implicit per the property's name; isn't this under-specification? Is it true, for instance, that every conceivable resource plays the role in some-thing either as an actor, a function or otherwise?
Your goal for properties "devoid of domain specific content" defaults the range of all these properties to rdf:Resource. Cannot the model be more specific, relating actors roles events? I once wrote about the basic model of interest being one representing staged performances, including others like script and scene. "devoid of domain specific content" sounds underspecified to me as above.
I agree with the goal though, to have the range and domain of a property be unbounded. If properties are, say, prepositions & verbs, then they must be without range or domain. Logically the RDF Model suggests doing exactly this, as it defines the term Statement composed of Subject Predicate Object, a very grammatical model. Notionally "predicates" decompose to predicate-verb and -object, the latter being a Clause -- a subtype of Statement. Thus properties are named only as verbs & prepositions.
Tenseless Amodal Properties. I'd like to know how you'd model this in RDF triples then
past(Harry believes (John Know Bill))
I know for me it'd be:
Person:Harry had [[Belief:That JohnKnowsBill]]
I think the goals of computational ontologies are to parse model & mine (shake rattle & roll!) those words!
Thanks - jmc
_________________________________________________________________ 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] What is the role of an upper level ontology?, doug foxvog|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] is-part-of: a really, really, bad practice?, David C. Hay|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] is-part-of: a really, really, bad practice?, William Frank|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] is-part-of: a really, really, bad practice?, John F Sowa|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|