Hi Frank, Using your terms and interpretation, I would say the statement "X says (Y causes Z)" is the latter, i.e. stating a unique relationship between X and the unique relationship "Y causes Z". As you know, separately Simon Spero and Doug Foxvog gave examples of general relationships between relationships: Simon: "is a sub property of" is a sub property of "is a specialization of". (a nice recursion!)
Doug: properVersionOfReflexivePredicate(greaterThan greaterOrEqual)
prospectiveRoles(dropperOf breakerOf)
higherRankingPosition( presidentOf vicePresidentOf)
My example and question was motivated by what Jack Park wrote in his first message in this thread: 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?
Hence my disclaimer that I was only asking a question, not claiming a proof of what should be in the IF4IT standard, since the question revolves on how the standard defines the term "predicate"... My Best, Phil
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:58:08 -0400 Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Requesting Opinions on the Benefits of Predicates as Nodes From: Frank.Guerino@xxxxxxxxx To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CC: philipcjacksonjr@xxxxxxxxxxx Hi Phil,
Thanks for the clarification. If you don't mind, I have a follow-up question on the example you provided…
You wrote: "another example could be "X says (Y causes Z)", i.e. a predicate C could link two nodes A and B, where A or B may be a predicate, though not necessarily both."
In this example, my interpretation is that… - X, Y, and Z are atomic Nodes
- "says" and "causes" are atomic Predicates
- (Y causes Z) is a Relationship statement
In the statement: "X says (Y causes Z)", is it really that a Predicate ("says") is linking to another Predicate OR is it that the second Predicate ("says") is linking a Node ("X") to an entire and very unique Relationship statement ("Y causes Z")?
My Best,
Frank
--
Frank Guerino, Chairman
The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
http://www.if4it.com
1.908.294.5191 (M)
Hi Frank,
I asked the question in response to Jack Park's email, in which he suggested a predicate instance could be a verb relating a subject and object, e.g. "X causes Y". If this can be a first-class entity then it seems another example could be "X says (Y causes Z)", i.e. a predicate C could link two nodes A and B, where A or B may be a predicate, though not necessarily both. Separately, Doug Foxvog and Simon Spero gave examples where both A and B are predicates, linked by a predicate C.
However, I was just asking a question, and suggesting this could be useful, not claiming to have a proof of what is or should be supported in the IF4IT standard.
Best,
Phil
|
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|