''We have indeed n-relational classes (which we call 'templates'), not just
n-relational predicates. These n-relational entities are Resources.<HT/> (01)
Hans, (02)
I want once more emphasize that wholly sympathize with your project, knowing
that you do real things. But can't say the same about the reference you
mentioned several times, which titled as ''Defining N-ary Relations on the
Semantic Web: Use with Individuals''. (03)
And you make me commentate such works which I’d prefer to diplomatically
ignore, for one of the editors is coming from Russia. Well, if the issue is
raised...., it must be somehow resolved. (04)
Shortly, the reference pervasively supports my simple claim that the OWL
language has a fatally poor expressivity for an adequate representation of
real objects, states, changes, and relations. Accordingly, all its issues
unnaturally begotten are doomed to be feeble and decrepit. (05)
If unprejudiced, one may easily see my point putting in one thread what i
said before: (06)
''Relations should be analyzed not only with respect to the number of terms
they connect and formal properties as cardinality, symmetry, transitivity,
reflexivity. This is all the subject of a formal relational logic. As old as
Russell's statement that 'every proposition should be regarded as expressing
a relation between two and more things', like in the from R(x, y, z,...).''
<Asha/> (07)
Now see the use cases from that work, which simply overrides the Russell's
claim, placing instead the relational variables neither classes nor
individual variables but just objects: (08)
Several common use cases fall under the category of n-ary relations. Here
are some examples: (09)
1.. Christine has breast tumor with high probability. There is a binary
relation between the person Christine and diagnosis breast_tumor and there
is a qualitative probability value describing this relation (high).
2.. Steve has temperature, which is high, but falling. The individual
Steve has two values for two different aspects of a has_temperature
relation: its magnitude is high and its trend is falling.
3.. John buys a "Lenny the Lion" book from books.example.com for $15 as a
birthday gift. There is a relation, in which individual John, entity
books.example.com and the book Lenny_the_Lion participate. This relation has
other values such as the purpose (birthday_gift) and the amount ($15).''
<NR/>
''Above all, relationship should be considered with respect to the nature
and meanings of its components; for it is a real entity (like causality and
space-time relations) rather than an idea, although expressed by verbs and
propositions and abstract nouns and relational adjectives.''<Asha/> (010)
This means that verbs show existence ('be', 'exist'), state ('have',
possess', 'know'), action ('do', 'change'), and relationships ('relate',
'cause', 'represent'). In the strict sense, neither of the above cases
belongs to a class of sentences expressing some sort of relationships, if
only formal logical. So what they really signify? For this we have to
remember what kinds of properties are in the world. (011)
''The construct of owl:Property, with its two basic types: owl:
ObjectProperty (mapping individuals to individuals, and called a binary
relation) and owl:DatatypeProperty (mapping individuals to datatype values,
and called a binary relation). In fact, there are monadic and diadic
properties; essential and accidental; atomic, transient, complex, or
emergent; particular and general, etc. But mostly important to tell the
formal properties (attributes) from the ontological properties, which are
generally classified as:
1. the property of being a substance (object), substantial properties;
2. the property of being a state (quantity or quality), quantitative and
qualitative properties;
3. the property of being a process (change, action, operation), dynamic,
functional, operational properties;
4. the property of being a relationship; relational properties per se.
Thus, in the owl domain, owl:Property is badly narrowed to the property of
being a formal (functional) relationship, direct and inverse; without
explicitly identifying the nature of relations between the connected
components, spatial, temporal, causal, whole/part, syntactic, semantic,
pragmatic, etc.''<Asha/> (012)
So if one wisely follows the golden rule [to be related to real world
domains, the logical notions of 'definition', 'class', 'property' and
'statement' should be reified within the fundamental context of entity
classes], the real interpretation of the use cases will be rather different: (013)
The first sentence signifies some pathological [state, medical condition,
with a certain probability] of some human being; or involves [the property
of somebody to be in a state]. (014)
The second sentence again signifies some sort of physical state [quantity,
temperature of a physical body, body temperature, which values are changing
somehow] (015)
The third sentence signifies some type of human action [buying, or
purchasing] having all the typical characteristics for this sort of
activity, the buyer, the seller, the cost, the purpose. (016)
Regret to say, but the work is far away of what it promises: ''ontology
patterns for representing n-ary relations and discusses what users must
consider when choosing these patterns.'' <NR/> (017)
Still hardly will be surprised to see this stuff declared as another
standard, if only 'the standard of OWL simplicity'. (018)
Respects, (019)
Azamat Abdoullaev (020)
http://www.eis.com.cy (021)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hans Teijgeler" <hans.teijgeler@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Azamat'" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <semantic-web@xxxxxx>; "'ONTAC-WG General Discussion'"
<ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Noy, Natasha" <noy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Rector,
Alan" <rector@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 11:56 AM
Subject: N-relational entities (Was owl:Class and owl:Thing) (022)
> Hi Azamat,
>
> <AA>
> ...for it is a real entity (like causality and space-time relations)
> rather
> than an idea...
> </AA>
>
> We have indeed n-relational classes (which we call 'templates'), not just
> n-relational predicates. These n-relational entities are Resources. See
> for
> example the work of Natasha Noy and Alan Rector [1].
>
> We can (and do) attach any kind of meta information to them (record
> creation
> datetime, record creator (shown below), content meta data (e.g. "Approved
> for Construction", a reference to a Change Order, etc), and/or, if
> necessary, even a SPARQL script and/or rules.
>
> An example of a template instance is:
>
> <tp:ST-3401 rdf:ID="ST-734651">
> <dm:recordCreator rdf:resource="#JOHN_DOE-20060125T1037Z"/>
> <tp:possessor rdf:resource="#FPO-347621-20060124T1645Z"/>
> <tp:propertyType
> rdf:resource="http://www.15926.org/2006/02/rdl#MAWP"/>
> <tp:basePropertyType
> rdf:resource="http://www.15926.org/2006/02/rdl#PRESSURE"/>
> <tp:numericalValue rdf:resource="#XSFL_100"/>
> <tp:unitOfMeasure
> rdf:resource="http://www.15926.org/2006/02/rdl#BARG"/>
> </tp:ST-3401>
>
> <rdl:XML_SCHEMA_FLOAT rdf:ID="XSFL_100">
> <dm:content
> rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#float";>100</dm:content>
> </rdl:XML_SCHEMA_FLOAT>
>
> where ST-3401 is the ID of the applicable template class in OWL, with the
> label "quantified property of individual". We are building a vocabulary of
> such template classes.
>
> (Note the fact that we also turn Literals into Resources. That makes
> translations easier (also represented by means of templates)).
>
> Regards,
> Hans
>
> PS dm: = ISO 15926-2 data model in OWL, rdl: = ISO 15926-4 vocabulary of
> reference data, tp: = ISO 15926-7 vocabulary of template classes
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/
>
> ============================================================
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Azamat [mailto:abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 17:38
> To: Hans Teijgeler
> Cc: semantic-web@xxxxxx; ONTAC-WG General Discussion
> Subject: Re: owl:Class and owl:Thing
>
> ''What exactly did you have in mind when you referred to "n-relational
> ontology of things"? <HT/>
>
> Hans:
>
> Relations should be analyzed not only with respect to the number of terms
> they connect and formal properties as cardinality, symmetry, transitivity,
> reflexivity. This is all the subject of a formal relational logic. As old
> as
> Russell statement that 'every proposition should be regarded as expressing
> a
> relation between two and more things', like in the from R(x, y, z,...).
> Above all, relationship should be considered with respect to the nature
> and
> meanings of its components; for it is a real entity (like causality and
> space-time relations) rather than an idea, although expressed by verbs and
> propositions and abstract nouns and relational adjectives. Thus here comes
> ''n-relational ontology of entities''.
>
> Regards,
> Azamat Abdoullaev
> http://www.eis.com.cy
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/300 - Release Date: 03-Apr-06
>
> (023)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (024)
|