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