On Wed, May 22, 2013 11:08, Phil Murray wrote: (01)
> [Doug Foxvog] (02)
> >> [Phil Murray] (03)
> >> If you are representing the meaning of a purchase ("John bought
> >> a book at books.com."), wouldn't _plays the role of Agent in_
> >> or (perhaps even
> >> better) _participates as Agent in_ be better than "has_Agent"
> >> to represent the relationship between John and the statement of
> >> fact about John's activity?
>
> [DF]
> > No, that is worse. There is a buying and a selling agent in the sale.
> > The appropriate role needs to be clarified. The sale should be
> > reified,
> > and relations specifying what is important(buyer, seller, object whose
> > ownership is transferred, recompense for the sale, location of event,
> > time of event, ...) should be made. (04)
> > Note that English differentiates "to sell" from "to buy", "to borrow"
> > from "to lend", and "to give" from "to receive". Finnish has a single
> > infinitive for each, and indicates (through case structure) who is on
> > the giving and receiving end. (05)
> [PM]
> That's interesting. Do Finnish-speakers think in more transactional terms
> than English-speakers??? (06)
I don't know, but i've heard several, when speaking English, refer to
"lend[ing] <something> from the library". (07)
> My example, "John bought a book at books.com." was meant as part of
> a "narrative" [about stuff that someone observed had happened] -- that is,
> I was thinking less about modeling the notion of "transaction" than about
> who initiated the activity. That was my [unspoken, and therefore vague]
> notion of Agent. (08)
This requires some knowledge about books.com. In some situations
a seller initiates a sale. [Try walking through a Third-World market;
or consider door-to-door sales people or people who try to sell you
flowers or window cleaning service at a stop light.]
The mapping between between buyer and initiatingAgent and seller
and respondingAgent can go either way. Either way, it takes two
agents (at least) to complete a sale. Sure, if the sale is on the internet
one or both agents can create a bot to perform its actions. (09)
> In this case, it's important to differentiate the role of Agent
> (as a person who initiated an activity) (010)
Call this role initiatingAgent. (011)
> from the role of Recipient (012)
Call this role respondingAgent. (013)
> (or "source of products sought"?). (014)
A very broad role, which might include a shop, an aisle or shelf in a
store, a URL, a human being, or something else. (015)
> I still prefer the notion of Concepts
> "participating as [role] in" the meaning of complex ad hoc statements
> about reality. (016)
So you would name your relations:
participating as initiating agent in
participating as responding agent in
participating as buyer in
participating as seller in
instead of the shorter :
initiatingAgent(In)
respondingAgent(In)
buyer(In)
seller(In) (017)
I prefer the inverse relations, without the "in", fwiw. (018)
Note that if the role is an argument, then you have a ternary relation (019)
Or are you reifying the relation instance: (020)
There is a relation:
Its ole is R
Its role subject is S
Its role object is O
to mean <S R O> (021)
> In other resources, the existence and precise specification of the
> transaction may be sufficient ... or even preferable. (022)
What is needed more than a precise specification of the transaction?
So long as the transaction is reified, more statements about it can
always be made. (023)
-- doug foxvog (024)
> Phil (025)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (026)
|