RE: Question about ontology

Hi J,



Ah, one afterburner …



It is your “I have to choose between object, predicate, and ...”-frame that
creates the problem, not the term “pouring”, because that just means what
“pouring” means.

The basic meaning of “pouring” preceeds such distinctions.



That’s how I “generally think” ;-)



Hope we meet!



Paul





*From:* jmcclure@hypergrove.com [mailto:jmcclure@hypergrove.com]
*Sent:* dinsdag 10 september 2013 23:17
*To:* Paul Oude Luttighuis
*Cc:* public-owl-dev@w3.org
*Subject:* RE: Question about ontology



Yes Pouring is a gerund, both a noun and verb, consequently unsuitable as
either a type of thing or as a predicate. With reference to earilier note,
Pouring is short for "PouringThings", a tag that may be transiently
attachable to anything (to any subject) that is "in" the state of
being-poured. This last assertion mimics pretty well how we generally think
about these things -- nothing artificial; nothing needs to be translated to
special ontology 'words' (like m_part_of, for 'mereologically part of')
whose particular semantics are truly understood only by the fully washed;
nothing at all surprising or challenging or mystifying, from the
perspective of the general public.

On 10.09.2013 12:43, Paul Oude Luttighuis wrote:

Hi J,



Good point. I interpreted the original question so that full bottles always
result from pouring.



I might have interpreted otherwise, but I think it is essential to ask the
following questions here:

1.       Can I understand FullBottle only if I understand Pouring first?

2.       Can I understand Pouring only if I understand FullBottle first?

3.       Can I understand them independently from each other, and then
relate them somehow?



I picked the first option. Consequently, I declared Pouring to be the
context that defines FullBottle. In contextual models, this implies that
different specialisations of Pouring may define very different types of
FullBottle.



So, if you would see “pouring through a filter” as a specific kind
(specialization) of pouring, than this would define a specialization of
FullBottles, namely those that are defined by FilteredPouring.



If you think that this is not “pouring” anymore, that’s fine. Then,
“pouring” is too narrow a context here. And we would have to use a wider
concept for a context.



(Notice, by the way, that I used the word “pouring”. Is it a verb or a
noun? You pick. It’s a gerund, the English way of nouning verbs.)



Regards,



Paul



*From:* jmcclure@hypergrove.com [mailto:jmcclure@hypergrove.com]
*Sent:* dinsdag 10 september 2013 20:43
*To:* public-owl-dev@w3.org
*Subject:* RE: Question about ontology



Further, it's said a FullBottle results from "pouring"? Is it a different
thing if I pour first through a filter into the bottle? Or how about if I
collect the liquid into the bottle through a wholly different process, not
pouring anything at all --- is that not a "FullBottle" anymore?

This is not a rhetorical question - it arises when something is
categorically defined with reference to a process or action performed to
create it.

/jmc

PS You are not 'in' a marriage. In fact nothing is "in" a marriage that I
know of. Sure a marriage "has" a Wife and "has" a Husband, and you "are" a
husband. Why not just use those words?

Marriage:Obama has:this Husband:Barack_Obama
Marriage:Obama has:this Wife:Michelle_Obama
Husband:Barack_Obama is:this Person:Barack_Obama

Can this possibly be improved, that is, made more clear to the AVERAGE
person? How would other ontologies indicate the same smenatic content -- do
they pass the "shared, intuitive understanding" test?



On 10.09.2013 10:38, jmcclure@hypergrove.com wrote:

Well sure a statement can be actively or passively stated for instance. And
there's no dispute that the physical organization of a set of triples can
be altered without changing the semantics of its statements (but so what?).
I do strenuously dispute though that you can "turn adjectives nouns and
verbs into each other". And I strenuously argue that any ontology that
ignores adjectives and prepositions is seriously, deeply flawed -- such an
ontology makes assertions such as yours ("*no difference*...(between)... a
relation/predicate and (its) object") almost reasonable!

My problem is that there IS a difference. Objects are nouns. Subjects are
nouns. But predicates can NOT be nouns; nouns can NOT be predicates.
Rather, common nouns connote types of things: they are but labels for
distinguishing generic identities. Nouns are not candidates for predicates!

But what do we see as a consequence of using nouns for predicates? Well,
first off, you see tendencies to define property hierarchies that DUPLICATE
noun hierarchites -- same noun, first upper cased in the noun hierarchy and
then lower-cased in the property hierarchy -- golly how pregnant with
meaning that first letter is made to be!

How can the outcome of a massively bloated noun-infused property hierarchy
be said correct? Ever heard of Occams Razor?

thanks /jmc



On 09.09.2013 23:06, Paul Oude Luttighuis wrote:

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