On 1/22/2014 10:35 PM, doug foxvog wrote:
I.e., there are two meanings, and the same word is
used for each.
I've since discovered the term 'predicator' was coined to identify
predicate-in-the-FOL sense, to distinguish it from
predicate-in-the-grammatical-sense. See here in Gold
2010 or from FreeDictionary:
predicator (ˈprɛdɪˌkeɪtə).
1. (Grammar) (in systemic grammar) the part of a sentence
or clause containing the verbal group; one of the four or five
major components into which clauses can be divided, the others
being subject, object, adjunct, and (in some versions of the
grammar) complement.
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.
The Wikipedia text later says there are some (unspecified)
exceptions. But exceptions are not the rule. The rule is that
predicators are (mainly, usually, generally, most often,
expectantly; that is, as a rule) verbs. And "corresponds" in
this sentence was clearly intended to refer to the concept of a
predicate corresponds to the verbs and its auxiliaries in a
sentence, that is, the former is derived from the latter.
<snip/>
If you say the latter, then WHERE ARE THE VERBS
<snip/>
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
My general thesis concerns the use of prepositions in predicates
(which goes to your DO/IDO critique) which are ObjectPropertys;
rdf:about is a fine example, as its present tense is implied, so the
property is more clearly named "is:about", yes, in a verbal
namespace called "is". rdf:Property is not a predicate so it should
not be listed here at all. xml:lang is an artifact that can be
equally represented with a link to a Language object. rdfs:label can
point to a separate resource that is a Name via a predicate named
has:this, rdfs:comment may be linked similarly through has:this to a
Description resource. rdf:resource is an artifact of its age-old
encoding (XML). rdfs:domain and rdfs:range are the core of the
intellectual problem both you and I have about the RDF, so I'd
rather talk about them separately. rdfs:subPropertyOf may just as
easily be is:of.
These are not mere word games. The nounal choices made by RDF/S
became the predominate design pattern for all subsequent RDF
ontologies. The consequence is utterly wretched: ontologies are
twice the size they need to be, with made-up camel-cased techno
words -- reuse absolutely sucks and SMEs are justifiably repelled.
- why do we see predicates defined like
<rdf:Property rdf:about="&p3p;purposeOptIn">
Because of the syntax used.
syntax is not the issue. It is nouns versus verbs and prepositions.
The number of arguments is important but it's not the issue here
either.
<snip/>
Thanks for the reply/jmc
|
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (01)
|