[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] is-part-of: a really, really, bad practice?

To: "Ontolog (E-mail)" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: <jmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 15:07:52 -0800
Message-id: <6603045cbabdf429e7e496ec2075c0f6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Mon, May 27, William Frank wrote:

as happens often around here, it seems to me we agree more than disagree, but are using different language, but also seem to disagree about what is shiny new and what is old. 

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 7:43 PM, <jmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


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;

We are really speaking about two different senses of the word 'domain'.  I am using 'domain' as in domain of human endeavor, domain knowledge.  For example, organic chemistry, baseball, derivatives trading.    It seems to me you are using domain in the mathematical sense, in which Datatype is a domain.   I guess this is another domain of human endeavor, but a sort of 'meta' domain of endeavor, for computer scientists, not for chemists and ballplayers.
JMcYes I'm using the RDF definition of domain.

I am asserting that it best to treat everything you want to talk ABOUT as an entity, a thing, is to **cast** it, no matter how it appears in a given discourse, or language, the same way,  as a noun.    To let this noun represent the concept, instances of the concept, everything you ever want to say about your domain of knowledge.  So, catalysis is a noun, catalyst is a noun, atomic weight is a noun, 36.7 is a noun, decimal number is a noun, hydrogen is a noun, water is a noun, etc. etc.  ***All** of these represent hunks of something the chemist might be interested in or know about.  The role of the grammar and logic of the ontology is to provide the links with which these things can be connected, and so make assertions about their relationships, using non-domain specific concepts like event, role, is a kind of.  So, catalyis is a kind of chemical reaction names two domain specific thingies, chemical reactions and catalysis, using one domain independent connector, 'is a kind of'. 

is an instance of,   is a kind of, is a part of, is a datatype, is a role, is a ternary relationship, these, on the other hand, apply to chemistry as well as to baseball.

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?

JMc: By under-specifying the subject and object, I mean you do not create the triples "X is-a Part" and "Y is-a Whole" -- these little factoids are implicit in the isPartOf relation. My approach is "<Part:X> in <Assembly:Y>" which spurs creation of these additional triples
  • <X> of <Type:Part>
  • <Y> of <Type:Assembly>
  • <Assembly:Y> has <Part:X>
JMc: Regarding "plays the role in", elsewhere I show triples to satisfy both 'has Role:Y' and 'of Type:Y' queries.

Is it true, for instance, that every conceivable resource plays the role in some-thing either as an actor, a function or otherwise?

CAN play many such roles, depending on role constraints (which often change over time)

That s the very point, it might play the role OF something in something, but the role is a very different kind of entity from an entity that assumes the role.   The kinds of roles I am talking about are things like 'brother'.   Not things like fido the dog, who might ***play the role** of brother in a sibling relationships with Sallie the dog.
JMc: I'd state those relationships as ones that are in <Category:Platonic> ie <Class:PlatonicThings>.
  • <Brother:Dog:Fido> has <Sister:Dog:Sally>
  • <Brother:Dog:Fido> about <Dog:Fido>
  • <Brother:Dog:Fido> of <Type:Brother>
  • <Brother:Dog:Fido> in <Category:Platonic>
  • <Sister:Dog:Sallie> has <Brother:Dog:Fido>
  • <Sister:Dog:Sallieabout <Dog:Sallie>
  • <Sister:Dog:Sallieof <Type:Sister>
  • <Sister:Dog:Sallie> in <Category:Platonic>
  • <Type:Brother:Dog:Fido> within <Type:Brother>
  • <Type:Sister:Dog:Salliewithin <Type:Sister>
  • <Dog:Fido> of <Type:Dog>
  • <Dog:Fido> of <Type:Brother:Dog:Fido>
  • <Dog:Fido> has <Sister:Dog:Sallie>
  • <Dog:Sallie> of <Type:Sister:Dog:Sallie>
  • <Dog:Sallie> of <Type:Dog>
  • <Dog:Sallie> has <Brother:Dog:Fido>
  • <Brother:Person:John> has <Brother:Person:Paul>
  • <Brother:Person:John> of <Type:Brother>
  • <Brother:Person:Paul> of <Type:Brother>
  • <Brother:Person:John> in <Category:Younger>
  • <Brother:Person:Paul> in <Category:Older>
  • <Person:Paul> of <Type:Brother:Person:Paul>
  • <Person:John> of <Type:Brother:Person:John>

There's still a couple problems with the above, but I need to send this off now -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>
  • Re: [ontolog-forum] is-part-of: a really, really, bad practice?, jmcclure <=