On Tue, January 21, 2014 17:28, John McClure wrote:
[text below; commented on parts here] (01)
> There are two competing notions of the *predicate* in theories of
> grammar (02)
I.e., there are two meanings, and the same word is used for each. (03)
People should realize that such cases are not competing notions of some
thing, but multiple notions, with the unfortunate use of the same label
for the different things. (04)
> The first concerns traditional grammar, which tends to view a
> predicate as one of two main parts of a sentence, the
> other part being the subject;
> the purpose of the predicate is to modify the subject. (05)
I would disagree with this "purpose" claim. That isn't what traditional
grammar claims about this notion of "predicate". (06)
> The second derives from work in predicate calculus (predicate logic,
> first order logic)
> and is prominent in modern theories of syntax and grammar. In this
> approach, the predicate of a sentence corresponds mainly to the main
> verb and any auxiliaries that accompany the main verb, whereas the
> arguments of that predicate (e.g. the subject and object noun phrases
> are outside the predicate. [wikipedia (07)
This second meaning is that which we are using in ontologies. Note that
in this meaning, the predicate "corresponds mainly" to verbs -- is
different from saying that the predicate is a verb. Here we have gotten
away from natural language and need not be concerned with verbs. If we
choose to express a statement in a natural language, we can choose to map
the predicate to a (set of) verb(s). (08)
Note also that this definition does not require there to be exactly two
arguments. There may be one, two, or more.
* S V
* S V O
* S V DO IDO (09)
> If (1) rdf:Statement = rdf:subject + rdf:predicate + rdf:object, then to
> which of these "competing notions" does rdf:predicate refer? (010)
It is a subset of the second meaning, with exactly two arguments. (011)
> If you say
> the former, then I maintain the formulation should be (2) rdf:Statement
> = rdf:subject + rdf:predicate. (012)
So this is not the meaning. (013)
> If you say the latter, then WHERE ARE THE VERBS (014)
As mentioned above, definition 2 predicates *correspond* to verbs -- they
don't need to be verbs. Therefore i will take your "VERBS" to mean
predicates. (015)
Thus, the VERBS are the binary predicates used in each embedded sentence.
* rdf:about
* rdf:Property
* xml:lang
* rdfs:label
* rdfs:comment
* rdf:resource
* rdfs:domain
* rdfs:range
* rdfs:subPropertyOf (016)
> - why do we see predicates defined like
> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&p3p;purposeOptIn"> (017)
Because of the syntax used. (018)
>why on earth is this thing called a "Statement"? (019)
It is a "Statement" because it is a set of statements that are
interconnected, some being used as arguments to others and some being
implicitly anded. A sentence diagram for this statement is quite
possible, though complex. (020)
It is a single sentence because the predicate rdf:about relates
"&p3p;purposeOptIn" to a single property which happens to be a set of
properties. (021)
> In short, the entire body of predicates defined by the [RDF] "ontologist
> community" to-date are fundamentally flawed. (022)
Flawed as a body, yes. But i suggest this does not mean that each
individual predicate is flawed. The requirement to use only binary
predicates is the flaw -- it is the hammer that is the chosen tool to
solve every problem. (023)
> It's small wonder SMEs look
> askance at ontologists and their gee-whiz ideas; in their gut, they know
> something is amiss. (024)
Other computer scientists do not limit methods/routines to having exactly
two arguments. Of course, they see this box RDFers put themselves in as
counterproductive. (025)
> (Note: this perspective is completely scoped within the RDF,
> where many of us 'practitioners' must wallow, so replies of 'use CycL'
> are simply unresponsive to the needs of what, 95% of the people in
> this forum.) (026)
I suggest removing the "must". One might use RDF as a communication
standard, but that does not mean that an processing must be done using it
(other than converting between it and a more accessible form). (027)
Why wallow? (028)
-- doug (029)
> =============================
On Tue, January 21, 2014 17:28, John McClure wrote:
> John Sowa et al,
> <rant>I do agree SMEs' stakeholdership in an ontology is key to what
> ails us. But the problem is with the way we create ontologies; until we
> grapple with that, "better tools are the answer" is merely lipstick on a
> pig. SMEs certainly /should/ recoil at stuff like:
>
> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&p3p;purposeOptIn">
> <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">purpose(opt in)</rdfs:label>
> <rdfs:comment>
> Data may be used for this purpose only when the user
> affirmatively requests this use.
> </rdfs:comment>
> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&p3p;Statement"/>
> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&p3p;PurposeClass"/>
> <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="&p3p;purpose"/>
> </rdf:Property>
>
> No amount of tools, in my humble opinion, will /ever/ hide this
> odiferous _crap_. I strongly suspect that I could pull equally useless
> *properties* from whatever ontology is being hoisted on a pedestal, and
> effortlessly mock it too. IOW the way we use the RDF is thoroughly
> corrupt. Why/how? Here's the nub.
>
> There are two competing notions of the *predicate* in theories of
> grammar <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar>.^[1]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_%28grammar%29#cite_note-1>
> The first concerns traditional grammar, which tends to view a
> predicate as one of two main parts of a sentence
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_%28linguistics%29>, the
> other part being the subject
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_%28grammar%29>; the purpose
> of the predicate is to modify the subject. The second derives from
> work in predicate calculus (predicate logic
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_logic>, first order logic)
> and is prominent in modern theories of syntax and grammar. In this
> approach, the predicate of a sentence corresponds mainly to the main
> verb and any auxiliaries that accompany the main verb, whereas the
> arguments <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verb_argument> of that
> predicate (e.g. the subject and object noun phrases
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_phrase>) are outside the
> predicate. [wikipedia
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_%28grammar%29>]
>
> If (1) rdf:Statement = rdf:subject + rdf:predicate + rdf:object, then to
> which of these "competing notions" does rdf:predicate refer? If you say
> the former, then I maintain the formulation should be (2) rdf:Statement
> = rdf:subject + rdf:predicate. If you say the latter, then WHERE ARE THE
> VERBS - why do we see predicates defined like
>
> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&p3p;purposeOptIn">
>
> And if you were to say neither, then I ask why on earth is this thing
> called a "Statement"? Can we not stop making words up that suit
> arbitrary purposes?
>
> In short, the entire body of predicates defined by the "ontologist
> community" to-date are fundamentally flawed. It's small wonder SMEs look
> askance at ontologists and their gee-whiz ideas; in their gut, they know
> something is amiss. (Note: this perspective is completely scoped within
> the RDF, where many of us 'practitioners' must wallow, so replies of
> 'use CycL' are simply unresponsive to the needs of what, 95% of the
> people in this forum.)
>
> </rant>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/OntologySummit2014/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> (030)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (031)
|