RE: Question about ontology

 

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