On Wed, January 22, 2014 02:51, John McClure wrote:
> John,
> Please look at the predicates referenced in slides
>
><From%20Textual%20Entailment%20to%20Knowledgeable%20Machines,Invited%20presentation%20at%20the%20Joint%20Symposium%20on%20Semantic%20Processing%20%28JSSP%2713%29,%202013,Download%20PowerPoint%20Slides>
> in several of the presentations you cited. You will see that they all
> use a verb and often a preposition, with one exception (part of, which
> can equally be expressed as is-within). (01)
It's a phrase that has a different range of meanings. The name
"isPartOf" would be a verb phrase. (02)
It can be useful within a single system to have a naming standard. (03)
> All RDF properties that I've seen
> -- okay, there's the exception is-a in a few ontologies -- use nouns. (04)
This system is often for predicates that mean "has <Noun>" (with
different meanings of "have" in different cases) but with the name
also indicating the intended range of the predicate. (05)
The naming system has no bearing on the semantics -- although
maybe with the ease of a human reader to come to some level
of understanding of what was intended. (06)
As long as the system of nomenclature is consistent for a given
ontology, that's fine. (07)
> It's no wonder that FOL'ers need to transform these models into
> something more in accordance with what I cited originally in this thread (08)
One may choose to change names from an adopted system to fit the
local nomenclature. Or are you referring to transformations that
add semantics? (09)
> -- which you deleted in your original response (the guts of the original
> note) to my irritation:
>
> 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 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... (010)
Note that the predicate *corresponds* to a verb. That does not mean
that it *is* a verb or *must be labelled with* a verb. (011)
> The matter of negation is a different, side issue in my mind. Please
> comment on the fundamental criticism I am making here about the design
> pattern for RDF properties: FOL's verbs vs RDF's nouns. (012)
My comment here is "to each her own". It is good to have a consistent
system of naming. However, that does not mean that one's own fantastic
system of nomenclature given by the deities and any other system is
blasphemy. (013)
-- doug foxvog (014)
> regards/jmc
>
> On 1/21/2014 1:04 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
>> 1. See the slides and publications by the Aristo Project at AI2:
>> http://www.allenai.org/TemplateGeneric.aspx?contentId=12
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On 1/21/2014 11:16 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
>> On 1/22/2014 12:01 AM, John McClure wrote:
>>> How can FOL'ers not be implicitly derisive of the work RDF'ers are
>>> diligently about, when the first reaction is to THROW IT AWAY?
>> That's not the point I was trying to make. I'm sorry that I used
>> the phrase 'throw it away' because it was not clear what I was
>> rejecting. (015)
>> First point: FOL is a small subset of English and other NLs.
>> Any language that has the words 'and', 'or', 'not', 'some',
>> and 'every' can express full FOL. We all speak FOL every day. (016)
>> Second point: I wasn't rejecting what can be expressed in RDF.
>> You can use RDF to describe anything that you see, hear, or feel.
>> Every observation in science can be described in RDF.
>>
>> But RDF can't express negation. You can't say 'not'. And if you
>> take RDF and add negation, you get -- guess what -- full FOL.
>>
>> Some things you can't say in RDF:
>>
>> 1. Options: you can't say 'or' in RDF, because (p or q) is
>> defined as not(not p and not q) -- and RDF can't say 'not'.
>>
>> 2. Rules: you can't express an if-then rule in RDF, because
>> (if p then q) is defined as not(p and not q).
>>
>> 3. Generalizations: you can express 'all' or 'every' in RDF
>> because 'every cat is an animal' is defined as
>> 'it's false that some cat is not an animal'.
>>
>> My major complaint about RDF is that it makes simple things difficult.
>>
>> John (017)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (018)
|