On 5/21/2013 11:52 PM, John McClure wrote:
> Is it actually wrong to model with prepositions, or is it just
> not a recommended practice? (01)
There is nothing syntactically "wrong" in using any alphanumeric
string you prefer. But English and other NLs resolve ambiguities
by looking at a context of more than one word. (02)
In the usual notations for logic, including RDF, the parser or
theorem prover does not use context. Any two strings that are
spelled the same are treated as identical. (03)
JMc
> Below I'm keen... to resolve both 'has' and "is-a" Sister
> kind of queries.
>
> [[Person:X]] has [[Sister:Person:Y]]
> [[Person:X]] of [[Type:Sister:XY]]
> [[Sister:Person:X]] for [[Person:X]]
> [[Type:Sister:XY]] has [[Instance:Sister:XY]]
> [[Instance:Sister:XY]] of [[Type:Sister:XY]]
> [[Instance:Sister:XY]] for [[Person:X]] (04)
In these examples, it seems that you are assuming that context
(i.e., the types of the preceding and following nodes) will
somehow distinguish the different uses of 'has', 'of', and
'for'. That is true in English. It is also true of some
programming languages that support "polymorphism". (05)
But RDF and most versions of logic are not polymorphic.
Therefore, you need to distinguish the different relation
types with longer names, such as 'has-sister'. (06)
John (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|