Re: [ontology-summit] The tools are not the problem (yet)

[John McClure <jmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/23/2014 11:18 PM, doug foxvog wrote:

On Thu, January 23, 2014 12:42, John McClure wrote:

...
rdfs:subPropertyOf is interesting. It contains a preposition -- of --
that we agree upon. Semantically it is a subclassing mechanism but one
specific to properties,

This is an interesting use of the term "subclass".  I take it that you see
one
property as a subclass of another property, if its extent (i.e., the set
of valid sentences possible with that predicate) is a subset of the extent
of the second property.

Extending this, you view a property as a class of sentences.

No not really, since a statement = v(s,o), a property is only referenced in a sentence as a predicate -- that's the difference in my mind between property and predicate, ergo rdf:Statement disjointWith rdf:Property; these extents (gee I was told OWL got rid of that term!) are totally different.

so there's no difference between
rdfs:subPropertyOf and rdfs:subClassOf, with that exception of
*context*.

The difference is with argument type, with rdfs:subClassOf not accepting
the type of class which you consider a predicate to be (or at least not
accepting the name of a predicate as representing such a class).

I dont consider a predicate a class, so I'm not understanding your point here.

Properties may only be a subclass of other properties and
Classes may only be a subclass of other classes. And really, what is a
subclass other than a subdivision?

A subclass is a subdivision of a class.  A subdivision of a physical
object is not a subclass.  Nor is a subdivision of an organization, a
piece of music, a magazine article, or a game of cricket.

if a subclass is a subdivision then it should be stated as such. The only *value* in having a property subClassOf is to constrain the value set assignable to a subClassOf predicate. As I will be arguing shortly that tidbit of information can be learned/taught what types of objects may be asserted to be proper subdivisions of a given class.

Accordingly, it could have been rdfs:subdivisionOf -- that would
certainly be clearer to the average Joe,

I don't think i've met your average Joe.  I would guess that such a
general term would not make an average English speaker understand a
subproperty, while the term subProperyOf would have more of a chance to.

Funny! I'm not proposing such a property, but my point still stands: "subproperty" does not appear in the English language, it is artificial fake and insulting to English SMEs. Kinda like "subBookOf". I wouldnt ever propose such a property -- a subdivision is a noun, not a verb.

and it would have been
reusuable in other *contexts* -- the operative principle of *reuse*.

Reusable in other contexts means reusable with the same meaning when
applied to different sets of data -- not reusable with an analogous
meaning when applied to different types of arguments.

But instead, we get two oracular properties, one a completely *made-up*
word (subProperty),

A property is *not* a word, but it has a name.  I prefer a system of
nomenclature in which descriptive names are not pre-existing words, but
are made from them.   This leads to users being less likely to assume they
know the meaning without reading the definitions.

There's alot of people who agree with that; I'm sympathetic to it, though it does demand investment in tools for SMEs to use, which would mean of course they'd never see the symbolic name, so what's the point of P12345?

rather than community consensus about a more abstract concept.

More abstract concepts are useful when rules are applicable at that level
and don't need to be restated with a more specific meaning at the more
specific level.  When the more specific concepts have their own rules that
don't apply to the more general concept, it is better to use the more
specific concepts.

I'll address the generic nature of "is:of" later/jmc

I agree with Krzystof below that the name "is:of" seems so generic as to
be almost devoid of meaning.  What specific rules can be stated using
is:of that have no need to be further specified at a less generic level?

Almost devoid? I'll let Wiktionary speak for me. :)

Preposition

Wikipedia has an article on:

Of

of

1. Expressing direction.
   1. (now obsolete or dialectal) From (of distance, direction), "off". [from 9th c.]  [quotations ▼]
   2. (obsolete except in phrases) Since, from (a given time, earlier state etc.). [from 9th c.]  [quotations ▼]
   3. From, away from (a position, number, distance etc.). [from 10th c.]  [quotations ▼]
   4. (North America, Scotland, Ireland) Before (the hour); to. [from 19th c.]  [quotations ▼]
2. Expressing separation.
   1. Indicating removal, absence or separation, with the action indicated by a transitive verb and the quality or substance by a grammatical object. [from 10th c.]  [quotations ▼]
   2. Indicating removal, absence or separation, with resulting state indicated by an adjective. [from 10th c.]  [quotations ▼]
   3. (obsolete) Indicating removal, absence or separation, construed with an intransitive verb. [14th-19th c.]  [quotations ▼]
3. Expressing origin.
   1. Indicating an ancestral source or origin of descent. [from 9th c.]  [quotations ▼]
   2. Indicating a (non-physical) source of action or emotion; introducing a cause, instigation; from, out of, as an _expression_ of. [from 9th c.]  [quotations ▼]
   3. Following an intransitive verb: indicating the source or cause of the verb. [from 10th c.]  [quotations ▼]
   4. Following an adjective. [from 13th c.]  [quotations ▼]
4. Expressing agency.
   1. Following a passive verb to indicate the agent (for most verbs, now usually expressed with by). [from 9th c.]  [quotations ▼]
   2. Used to introduce the "subjective genitive"; following a noun to form the head of a postmodifying noun phrase. [from 13th c.]  [quotations ▼]
   3. Following an adjective, used to indicate the agent of something described by the adjective. [from 16th c.]  [quotations ▼]
5. Expressing composition, substance.
   1. After a verb expressing construction, making etc., used to indicate the material or substance used. [from 9th c.]  [quotations ▼]
   2. Directly following a noun, used to indicate the material from which it is made. [from 10th c.]  [quotations ▼]
   3. Indicating the composition of a given collective or quantitative noun. [from 12th c.]  [quotations ▼]
   4. Used to link a given class of things with a specific example of that class. [from 12th c.]  [quotations ▼]
   5. Linking two nouns in near-apposition, with the first qualifying the second; "which is also". [from 14th c.]  [quotations ▼]
6. Introducing subject matter.
   1. Linking an intransitive verb, or a transitive verb and its subject (especially verbs to do with thinking, feeling, expressing etc.), with its subject-matter: concerning, with regard to. [from 10th c.]  [quotations ▼]
   2. Following a noun (now chiefly nouns of knowledge, communication etc.), to introduce its subject matter; about, concerning. [from 12th c.]  [quotations ▼]
   3. Following an adjective, to introduce its subject matter. [from 15th c.]  [quotations ▼]
7. Having partitive effect.
   1. Following a number or other quantitive word: introducing the whole for which is indicated only the specified part or segment; "from among". [from 9th c.]  [quotations ▼]
   2. Following a noun indicating a given part. [from 9th c.]  [quotations ▼]
   3. (now archaic, literary) With preceding partitive word assumed, or as a predicate after to be: some, an amount of, one of. [from 9th c.]  [quotations ▼]
   4. Linking to a genitive noun or possessive pronoun, with partitive effect (though now often merged with possessive senses, below). [from 13th c.]  [quotations ▼]
8. Expressing possession.
   1. Belonging to, existing in, or taking place in a given location, place or time. Compare "origin" senses, above. [from 9th c.]  [quotations ▼]
   2. Belonging to (a place) through having title, ownership or control over it. [from 9th c.]  [quotations ▼]
   3. Belonging to (someone or something) as something they possess or have as a characteristic; the "possessive genitive". (With abstract nouns, this intersects with the subjective genitive, above under "agency" senses.) [from 13th c.]  [quotations ▼]
9. Forming the "objective genitive".
   1. Following an agent noun, verbal noun or noun of action. [from 12th c.]  [quotations ▼]
10. Expressing qualities or characteristics.
    1. (now archaic or literary) Linking an adjective with a noun or noun phrase to form a quasi-adverbial qualifier; in respect of, as regards. [from 13th c.]  [quotations ▼]
    2. Indicating a quality or characteristic; "characterized by". [from 13th c.]  [quotations ▼]
    3. Indicating quantity, age, price etc. [from 13th c.]  [quotations ▼]
11. Expressing a point in time.
    1. (chiefly regional) During the course of (a set period of time, day of the week etc.), now specifically with implied repetition or regularity. [from 9th c.]  [quotations ▼]
    2. (UK dialectal) For (a given length of time), chiefly in negative constructions. [from 13th c.]

       I've not tekken her out of a goodly long while.

    3. Used after a noun to indicate duration of a state, activity etc. [from 18th c.]  [quotations ▼]

Usage notes

• (belonging to or associated with): When applied to a person or persons, the possessive is generally used instead.
• (containing, comprising or made from): Of may be used directly with a verb or adjectival phrase.
• When modifying a noun, modern English uses more and more noun adjuncts rather than of. Examples include part of speech (16th century) vs. word class (20th century), Federal Bureau of Investigation (1908) vs. Central Intelligence Agency (1947), and affairs of the world (18th century) vs. world affairs (20th century).

_________________________________________________________________
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)