On 1/29/2014 5:47 AM, Matthew West
wrote:
Dear
John,
Hi Mathew,[MW>]
(Matthew)
Thank you for your patient explanations. On the list just last
week was an exchange about namespace identifiers, and it was
claimed there is no semantic definition for such; well,
15926's LeftNamespace and RightNamespace proves that assertion
wrong I guess.
[MW>]
No, I’m afraid not. ISO 15926 treats strings as first
class objects that can be used to represent other
objects. The semantic connection comes from the
relationship, not the strings themselves. This bit of
the model is just about string processing.
As for reuse, my understanding about First
Order Logic is that all properties are requred to be
predicators;
[MW>]
This is not true. It is for example quite permissible to
make Classification a predicate, and associate all you
properties to objects using the classification
predicate.
JMc: Matthew, it is true. (Btw, your 'Classification' is a defined
Class, so it cannot be a predicate in a triple.) I again
cite Wikipedia:
"the predicate of a sentence corresponds ... 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".
And this makes good sense. It'd be a stunningly hobbled
descriptive logic when the only way to know that a resource
participates in a given type of relation is by stating a
specific instance of the relation in which the resource
participates.
Example: if "isFatherOf" is said to be a valid
relation between A & B, how can know that A is a "Father"
without referencing an "A isFatherOf B" statement? However if
predicates were coordinate with *the rule* then the statement
"A is-a Father" exists with or without a statement that "A
has-this C" where "C is-a Child" and "C is-this B". Note that
all predicates are verbs. IOW "isFatherOf" is merely shorthand,
in no way definitive itself.
I maintain this odious shorthand completely screws up the
industry as these non-English psuedo technical artificially-intelligent
programmer words like "isFatherOf" overwhelm us like bunnies.
It's so bad now we need tools to help us understand our own damn
language - what a towering joke it all is-a!
15926's are not -- instead they are all
camelcased phrases, predicatorNouns, as is the common practice
elsewhere.
[MW>]
Well the format is usually defined by the language/tool
used, many of which use space as a separator, so you
need to use e.g. camelcase or underscores to make
multiword terms readable.
JMc: little wonder SMEs are nauseated when asked to confront
the resulting nightmare of a vocabulary. (BTW, semantic
wikis handle spaces quite easily.)
It is one's use of those nouns in object
properties in my opinion that eliminates reuse of very
substantial bodies of work like 15926. But as you say 15926
had no design intention for reuse, that to the extent it
occurs is pure serendipity.
[MW>]
That is incorrect. ISO 15926 was defined for reuse, just
not for piecemeal reuse I combination with other
ontologies. It has been reused as intended (usually
subsets) and it has also been reused in a piecemeal way
with other ontologies – despite that not being the
design intent – only that last was serendipity.
But if 15926 were constrained to use predicators for all
relations, I'd expect its reuse to be less random.
[MW>]
Actually I disagree. I think that defining just one or
two predicates like classification has made it much
easier to create a regular and more portable ontology,
though that was not why we did it. ISO 15926 was
originally created using entity relationship models, and
other considerations lead to us taking the particular
approach we did, in particular that one entity type
cannot be a member of another.
JMc: Your "Classification" is not a defined object property;
it is a defined class. "Classification" cannot be used as a
predicate in a triple/statement.
In fact it would then conform to the rule
that FOL predicates are predicators not nouns. I mean all
predicators, no nouns. Said differently, here's the rule: no
nouns, only predicators.
[MW>]
That is OK as long as you can say what a predicator is.
I have struggled to get a good answer to that question
from even the wisest heads on this forum. My take is
that predication is the same as classification as near
as makes no difference, but I suspect there is some
slight difference.
Perhaps you've missed the recent threads where I've given
links to Free Dictionary, Wiktionary
and Golds. Predicators have nothing to do with classification.
Why is this good valid rule with many beneficial consequences
violated, even by RDFS?
[MW>]
It’s not FOL, that’s why.
I'm told RDF was meant to be a proper subset, to avoid the
so-called complexity of FOL and its tools.
So often the 'noun' in the object property
is exactly the Class referenced by the rdfs:range for the
object property -- 15926 does that rather consistently. Hmm,
let's go further and name properties per their domain too!
"domainPredicatorRange" -- just what we did in the bad old
days of C data structures, prefixing members with the name of
the structure, sometimes with the predicator "is" and
sometimes with "has" all separated with underscores.
[MW>]
That would be a mistake, the role played by the range
would be more appropriate – which is what we do in ISO
15926.
But we're semanticists now, so let's not be caught with
properties like "approval", much better to say "hasApproval"
-- at least we're not saying "designApproval" or
"designHasApproval" or several others. It's got the predicator
in there, so what's the damn problem?
[MW>]
As I said the original is approval and class of
approval. You will find both the range and domain, and
the role played them also there. You should do your
homework before you offer criticisms.
Oops, I meant hasApprover which, just now rechecking, is
definitely in the published ontology. Whichever makes no
difference to my point, that there are many ways to state the
relation, but only one is correct if *the rule* is followed.
Oops, here's the problem:
Forgetting the rules = Having no rules =
No reuse.
[MW>]
Which might mean something if anything you said above
was correct. So I wonder how you account for ISO 15926
having been reused on some hundreds of projects over
the last 10+ years?
So you'd agree that if what I've said above is correct,
then this formulation is meaningful, regardless of anecdotes.
Fine, then we'll focus on whether the rule is a rule, or not.
Then we'll focus on what 'breaks' the rule.
_________________________________________________________________
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/
|
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|