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