I'd like to mention one other 'modeling' situation: (01)
Consider this sentence: (02)
A majority of scientists believe that X causes Y. (03)
In that, we can see two triples, one of which is nested as object in the other. (04)
In my work, I grant identity to assertions. In simplest RDF, that
means granting an ID to a triple, which makes it a quad. But, since my
assertion (predicate instance) already has identity, nested triples
can be created directly. (05)
I'm not saying that's the only way to do such modeling; nested
conceptual graphs also make sense. (06)
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Mark H Linehan <mhl@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jack describes here an important aspect of relationships that is not directly
>captured in graphs that treat the predicates as edges: the attributes
>associated with the relationships. Consider the triple {CompanyX employs
>Person1} using a predicate called "employs". The triple implicitly describes
>what an English speaker would conceptualize as an "employment", with
>attributes such as "start date", "end date", a location, etc. In RDF, you
>have to reify the relationship to associate such attributes. In UML, you
>could use an association class for this. In SBVR, you can define an
>"employment" concept (with its attributes) and say that every instance of
>"employs" is an instance of "employment". These approaches are needed so they
>can support queries such as "who is employed at xyz location", as well as
>"what is the employment location of Person1").
>
> Making predicates into first-class components of a graph certainly helps
>model the "objectification" aspects of relationships. Even more important is
>to permit the predicates to relate more than just subject and object, so as to
>directly associate the attributes.
>
> Mark H. Linehan
> www.linkedin.com/in/MarkHLinehan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jack Park
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 12:21 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Requesting Opinions on the Benefits of
>Predicates as Nodes
>
> I see an additional benefit, but not necessarily affiliated with the way you
>describe an 'implicit node' -- where a predicate appears, still, to be a
>second-class citizen in the graph.
>
> Let me explain.
>
> Mostly, it would seem that a predicate in a triple performs the task of
>linking subject and object; it has no other reason for being there other than
>to complete the assertion, e.g. A relates to B.
>
> But, consider this: if a specific *instance* of a predicate exists as a
>connective between two objects, then it can be said to carry the full
>semantics of the assertion itself. The instance is not an 'implicit' node: it
>is a vertex like any other in a graph.
>
> If I say: A cause B, then the node which is the 'cause' predicate can carry
>the full semantics of the triple itself. It's not just your father's predicate
>anymore; it's a first class citizen.
>
> Why do I care?
>
> Consider that said predicate has entails a possibly complex biography.
> Who discovered it? What evidence supports it? What debates are in play about
>it?
>
> I can't assign or otherwise link that biography to either A or B, but only to
>the specific predicate that ties them together.
>
> If I might add, I will assert that predicates as first class citizens is
>perhaps the only difference between an RDF graph and a topic map.
> I've built topic maps with RDF using the BigData RDF store; they work just
>fine, can import and export from, e.g. OWL documents, but with a loss of
>information when the topic map becomes OWL.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Frank Guerino <Frank.Guerino@xxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> For a number of years, we've been working with Data Driven Synthesis
>> as a means of rapidly generating Data Networks/Graphs and the
>> Knowledge Constructs (e.g. Library Catalogs, Indexes, Taxonomies,
>> Visualizations,
>> etc.) that help humans make easier & better sense of them (If
>> interested, see NOUNZ). Like many other Graph representations, we use
>> "triples" or "triplets" to help represent Semantic Relationships,
>> where descriptive Predicates are used as the binding between Subject Nodes
>and Object Nodes.
>>
>> To date, we've only treated Subjects and Objects as "Nodes" but we've
>> always known that we can (and have planned to) implement and treat
>> Predicates as a special type of "implicit" Node, as well. (Time
>> didn’t' allow us to get to doing so, until now.) We believe that
>> doing so grants users of Graphs certain benefits. We've identified
>> three (3)…
>>
>> #1: The first and obvious advantage is that users can now enter a
>> Graph from any Edge/Predicate as easily as they can enter from any
>> Node, and start to traverse the Graph based on that point of entry.
>>
>> #2: The second advantage of treating Predicates as Nodes is that a
>> Predicate can now be used as an "Index" or "Pointer" that allows users
>> to quickly find all Nodes which are tied to said Predicate (or any
>> Predicates that match certain traits). In other words, it's a way of
>> asking the Graph to quickly identify all Nodes that are connected to a
>> specific Edge/Link/Predicate (or any of a common set of Predicate
>> traits). This means that, in addition to being able to ask
>> "Node-oriented" questions of the Graph, you can now also ask
>> "Predicate/Edge-oriented" questions of the Graph, as well. This leads
>> to even more complex scenarios of being able to ask questions of, both,
>Nodes and Edges.
>>
>> #3: The third advantage (based on the second) is that traversal of a
>> Graph can be even quicker, leading to even shorter paths, because
>> instead of only traversing a Graph from Node-to-Node-to-Node, through
>> Nodes, users can now traverse from any Edge/Predicate to any other
>> Edge/Predicate, through Edges/Predicates.
>>
>> My question to the Community: Aside from the above three, do you see
>> any other benefits that we're missing?
>>
>> Thanks for your help.
>>
>> My Best,
>>
>> Frank
>> --
>> Frank Guerino, Chairman
>> The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
>> http://www.if4it.com
>> 1.908.294.5191 (M)
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (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)
|