Re: Question about ontology

Hello, maybe this article can help us in understanding the chalange of
model liquids.

http://www.inf.ufes.br/~gguizzardi/FOIS2010.pdf


2013/9/10 Paul Oude Luttighuis <paul.oudeluttighuis@novay.nl>

> Hi J,
>
>
>
> I’m afraid that’s not so fundamental. We shouldn’t over-interpret natural
> language grammar (nor physical appearance for that matter) when it comes to
> semantics. I can easily juggle around with adjectives, nouns and verbs and
> turn them into each other without changing the meaning of the sentence.
> Natural language grammar is superficial/superimposed structure for a large
> part.
>
>
>
> As much as that I can say that I am **in** a marriage (which I am), I can
> say that some marriage relates me to my wife. Also, there is no fundamental
> difference between a relation/predicate on the one hand and an object on
> the other. They are just different perspectives of the same. A marriage is
> equally a relation as it is an object. We tend to take them apart, but for
> superficial reasons (natural language grammar, or mathematics). Reification
> is no exception, it’s the rule. Don’t we say that we take **part** in a
> relation?
>
>
>
> So, I see no problem in having “full bottle” as the relation in this
> example. It relates “empty bottle” and “liquid”. The pouring is the context
> responsible for defining that relation. In case we can’t express
> contextuality, I would settle for seeing it as the third component of the
> relation. This makes sense (in this example), because you need “pouring” *
> *first** before you can have full bottles.
>
>
>
> By the way, by saying that the difference between **being in something**
> and **taking apart in something** is superficial, I do not say that such
> distinction is always irrelevant. But, in case I would feel that this
> distinction is relevant, I should think about what makes the difference.
> This context (the differentiator), though, is **specific**, it’s not
> fundamental. This even holds for the physical context.
>
>
>
> Cheers!
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* jmcclure@hypergrove.com [mailto:jmcclure@hypergrove.com]
> *Sent:* maandag 9 september 2013 22:09
> *To:* public-owl-dev@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: Question about ontology
>
>
>
> Well... If 'part-of' applies to liquid in a fullbottle, then wouldn't it
> be true you'd say that some car is part-of a full-garage? No, some liquid
> is IN a bottle, and some car is IN a garage. There's no need to redefine
> our most fundamental speech patterns!
>
> /jmc
>
> On 09.09.2013 11:52, Paul Oude Luttighuis wrote:
>
>  Dear Sybri team,
>
>
>
> My first question would be the question of existence-dependency, in other
> words: which terms are needed to define others? In this case it seems to me
> that “empty bottle”, “liquid”, and “pouring” all preceed “full bottle”.
>
>
>
> The semantic structure at hand then is: the context of “pouring” defines
> “full bottle” in terms of “empty bottle” and “liquid”.
>
> In other words: pouring **is** not a relation between empty bottle and
> liquid, it **defines** such relations.
>
> Such contextuality however cannot be expressed by OWL-type ontologies.
>
>
>
> If you would however want to stick to the OWL world, then part-of would
> work perfectly I guess, but then I would see “pouring” as part-of “full
> bottle” as well. There is no upfront semantic reason not to.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> *From:* System Bridge [mailto:sysbri1@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* maandag 9 september 2013 13:32
> *To:* public-owl-dev@w3.org
> *Subject:* Question about ontology
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> we are group of PHD students and we would like to ask you (ontology
> experts) for help/advice.
>
> We`re trying to make a simple expert system using ontology as knowledge
> base. We have come to few problems and before making any conclusions, we
> would like to confront it with you.
>
>
>
> We noticed that every explanation and example we found uses object
> hierarchy, e.g. OneThing isPartOf OtherThing or OneThing hasPart
> OtherThings. We don`t know how to model process which also causes that
> resulting object will be assembled from some other objects. For example:
>
>    a) Object Empty bottle
>
>    b) Object Liquid
>    c) Process: Liquid will be poured into the Empty bottle and thus will
> create some new object Bottle filled with liquid - see image attached.
>
>
> What we need is to define a relation “Pouring” that is between liquid and
> empty bottle. In fact we don’t really need “is part of” relations if there
> is a way to express “is part of” implicitly in “Pouring” relation, because
> it is obvious that the "Bottle with liquid" was created by "Pouring" the
> "Liquid" into the "Empty bottle". Also the direction of "Pouring" is
> important for us.
>
> So, the question is whether you may help us either by explaining this
> particular example or providing us with helpful source of information how
> to solve it.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Your sincerely
>
> Sybri team, University of Zilina, Slovakia[image: Inline image 1]
>
>
>



-- 
__________________________

Bruno Guimarães Carneiro
( 27 ) 9996-6666
( 27 ) 3343-0962
 _________________________