Re: [ontology-summit] First Model Bench Challenge

[Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@xxxxxxxxx>]

Amanda,

Well said.   +1.

Perhaps it would be useful instead to start with a training set of question/expected-answer pairs together with example artificial data ?   ( [1-3] below may be of interest for this. )

Then, there will be quick deductive computational test available at each tweak of the ontology, namely -- is the new version of the ontology compatible with the training set?

One might also be able to usefully do some inductive inference of the ontology from the Q/A plus data.

                                          -- Adrian

[1]  www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/Marry1.agent

[2]  www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/Marry2.agent

[3]  www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/Marry3.agent


Internet Business Logic
A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English Q/A over SQL and RDF
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com   
Shared use is free, and there are no advertisements

Adrian Walker
Reengineering

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Amanda Vizedom <amanda.vizedom@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'm going to answer this, in part because it is interesting, and in part because it illustrates why I generally don't respond to this sort of group attempt to formulate a generally good ontology of (x), when neither Subject Matter Experts nor readily researchable use cases are involved. I think the attempt is rarely feasible, and usually involves a wrong methodology for applied computational ontology development. Just about every subject is much more complex than expected, and more contextual, when you actually get into it. In practice, working ontologists do (or should, as a rule) determine how detailed and complex the model needs to be, and with respect to what, with reference to intended scope: what does this model need to support (including potential for reuse/extension)? What assumptions of the use context should be made explicit and then used to bound the model? If we have no such reference, the exercise is endless. If we have one but have no experts, we are modeling what we, professional ontologists but amateurs in the area of concern think about it, not the reality or practice.

In this case, I'm not an expert, not a lawyer, etc... but may have above average knowledge for the group, since I have some relevant practical experience, requiring getting to know several states' laws regarding common-law marriage and also its treatment by, for example, health insurance providers and the IRS. 

Common-law marriage is governed by law, but different jurisdictions set the specifications differently (or do not recognize common-law marriages at all). The treatment is, in fact, often unclear.

Let clause(a) = "P1 and P2 are competent adults, as defined in the state of jurisdiction"

Let clause(b) = "P1 and P2 are competent adults, as defined in the state of jurisdiction, and exactly one of P1 and P2 is male and exactly one of P1 and P2 is female, as defined in the state of jurisdiction"

Note that legal competence and legal gender each may change over time, and it can therefore be the case that while the length of cohabitation of P1 and P2 is known, either the competence or the legal gender of P1 or P2 may change during that cohabitation and by doing so cause P1 and P2 to satisfy clause(a) or clause(b) when they did not before, and the date of the change may be unclear under the law in the state of jurisdiction

Most states in the US that have common-law marriage currently have something based on clause (b), but not all do. 

Here, are some examples of different U.S. State treatments:

(1a, 1b) If [clause(a)|clause(b)], and P1 and P2 live together for >=n years, then P1 and P2 are entitled to be treated as married by the state, should they request such treatment. 

(2a, 2b) If [clause(a)|clause(b)], and P1 and P2 live together for >n years, then P1 and P2 are married in the eyes of the state, and if there is a separation, division of property, or subsequent marriage of either P1 or P2 to another party, laws governing divorce apply.

(3a, 3b) If [clause(a)|clause(b)], and P1 and P2 live together currently and represent themselves as married to the community, then P1 and P2 are married in the eyes of the state.  [No minimum time requirement]

(4) There is no common-law marriage, but a common-law marriage established in another jurisdiction will be recognized if it was recognized by that jurisdictions while the parties lived in that jurisdiction. If it satisfied the law of that jurisdiction but was not formally recognized by that jurisdiction, it will not be recognized [due to the difficulties of one jurisdiction's authorities  deciding on the satisfaction of another jurisdiction's laws].

(5) There is no common-law marriage, and a common-law marriage established in another jurisdiction, even if recognized formally by that jurisdiction and other authorities such as the US Federal Govt, will not be recognized if there is anything unclear or inconsistent with this jurisdictions laws.

-------

(3b) is the case Texas, by the way. That one is perhaps the most fascinating, because under it standard conditions, saying you're married makes it true. A speech act, indeed!

The US Govt will recognize a common-law marriage based on (3b), e.g. for tax purposes, if the representation is performed via some witnessed, notarized document, but may date the marriage as beginning at some prior time.

(5) is the case in Virginia, according to several Virginia family law experts/practitioners of my acquaintance, Virginia courts will look for a way to decline to recognize common-law marriages whenever possible. 

In the case which gave rise to my awareness of these issues, a common-law marriage was established in Texas (3b), recognized by the US Federal Govt and various other entities, redundantly re-established via civil ceremony in Massachusetts in a later year, then dissolved in Virginia. The Virginia experts representing the parties to the case were not in broad agreement, but did agree that the case ought to proceed using the date of the later Massachusetts ceremony, not the date of the Texas recognition. One reason was the risk of having to start over if the court simply refused to recognize the Texas marriage. The primary reason, however, was that none of these experts felt that they could establish a challenge-resistant start date for the Texas marriage! So it was, in their view, entirely unclear, despite its being governed by law, perhaps partly because of its government by too many laws!

So, on the specific point, the start of the situation can indeed be unclear. And on the general point, even the most basic structure of the situation and the event vary, even if we are considering only the legal concepts and not the religious or other   cultural concepts, and to represent any of them adequately for any use, you probably need to have some expert resources.

Best,

Amanda

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Wartik, Steven P "Steve" <swartik@xxxxxxx> wrote:

I wouldn't say it's unclear. It's governed by law, right? If you live together for some number of years, you are entitled to have the state recognize you as married. The date and time may not be as precise as if you have a wedding ceremony but can nevertheless be established. (Okay, I'm not a lawyer, and that's probably not the exact legal definition.)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontology-summit-b

 

ounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug foxvog
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 12:46 AM
To: Jack Ring
Cc: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] First Model Bench Challenge

On Mon, April 30, 2012 20:44, Jack Ring wrote:

> Marriage is a situation in which a couple BECOMES married.")

That situation is the WeddingCeremony in the normal case.  In the case of a common-law marriage, the start of the situation is unclear.

-- doug foxvog

> On Apr 30, 2012, at 1:39 PM, doug foxvog wrote:

>> Marriage is a situation in which a couple is married.")




_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/



_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/

_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/

_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/   
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012  
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/     (01)