Re: Semantic Predication: 1 - basic distinctions

Thanks for the clarification. As I thought.

Olaf


On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 11:17 +0000, Franconi Enrico wrote:
> The case of semantic predication stems from the Davidsonian event
> semantics tradition. 
> Almost any verb in language induces an event. A sentence like ‘Liz
> married Richard’, together with being a statement (:liz :spouse
> :richard), induces the existence of an event e of type marriage
> marriage(e) with thematic roles agent(e)=Liz and patient(e)=Richard.
> When we say 'The marriage lasted from 1964 to 1974’, we add to the
> previously mentioned event (referred to by the anaphoric determiner
> ’The’) the thematic role period(e)=1964-1974. When we then say 'Liz
> married again Richard’ and ’This marriage lasted from 1975 to 1976’,
> we induce a distinct event e’ having different properties:
> marriage(e’), agent(e')=Liz, patient(e')=Richard, period(e')=1975-
> 1976. 
> 
> But in RDF, how do we say 'again’? 
> My proposed ’trick’ is to create special types of marriage events,
> e.g., the first marriage, the second marriage, etc. Why does this
> trick work? Because in this case the two spouses together with the
> special type of marriage event (the first, the second, …) UNIQUELY
> identify all the other properties of any event instance in the domain
> of interest (the period, the place, the residence or whatever else).
> 
> The general principle to deal with multi-edges and semantic
> predication is to make sure while modelling that the event type
> together with the subject and the object uniquely identify any other
> property that the event may have. So, nothing to do with the
> Singleton Property.
> 
> cheers
> -e.
> 
> > On 16 Feb 2023, at 20:49, Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se> wrote:
> > 
> > Yes that's true  ...but only if Enrico's intention was indeed to
> > use :spouse-1 and :spouse-2 as unique property names, which I am
> > not sure of. Hence my question. 
> > 
> > Olaf 
> > 
> > Feb 16, 2023 20:36:07 Souripriya Das <souripriya.das@oracle.com>:
> > 
> > > The use of :spouse-1 and :spouse-2 as unique property names that
> > > are rdfs:subPropertyOf the main property :spouse is similar to
> > > one of the three approaches described in [1]. It is similar in
> > > idea to singleton properties but utilizes the preexisting
> > > property rdfs:subPropertyOf instead of requiring a new special
> > > property called rdf:singletonPropertyOf.
> > > 
> > > [1] 
> > > https://openproceedings.org/EDBT/2014/edbticdt2014industrial_submission_28.pdf

> > > From: Olaf Hartig <olaf.hartig@liu.se>
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 1:37 PM
> > > To: tl@rat.io <tl@rat.io>; franconi@inf.unibz.it <
> > > franconi@inf.unibz.it>
> > > Cc: public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
> > > Subject: [External] : Re: Semantic Predication: 1 - basic
> > > distinctions
> > >  
> > > Hi Enrico,
> > > 
> > > Regarding Singleton Properties, I am not actually sure that your
> > > idea with the :spouse-1 and :spouse-2 properties in
> > > your example was the same as the idea of Singleton Properties (as
> > > Thomas' comment suggests it was). Or maybe it was?
> > > 
> > > To understand whether it was or not, let me ask you the following
> > > question. Was your intention with the :spouse-1
> > > property to represent a "first-spouse" relationship that can also
> > > be used between other couples? In other words, was
> > > your intended meaning of :spouse-1 such that, in addition to the
> > > triple (:liz, :spouse-1, :richard), there could also be
> > > a triple such as (:alice, :spouse-1, :bob)?
> > > 
> > > If that's the case, then this is something else than Singleton
> > > Properties.
> > > 
> > > Best,
> > > Olaf
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On tor, 2023-02-16 at 16:39 +0000, Franconi Enrico wrote:
> > > > > On 16 Feb 2023, at 16:01, Franconi Enrico <
> > > franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > In the last example on semantic predicatins in eMail nr. 2
> > > you use properties ":spouse-1" and ":spouse-2", defined
> > > > > > as subproperties of ":spouse". Note that here you are
> > > employing the Singleton Property approach and wouldn't need
> > > > > > quoted triples at all. But, because quoted triples
> > > reference the type, practically all your examples could face
> > > > > > the same need to account for a multiplicity of annotations.
> > > Ergo Singleton Properties might be the better approach
> > > > > > after all.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don’t know where to read in order to understand what the
> > > Singleton Property is (my fault, sorry…).
> > > > 
> > > > OK, I’m studying now the singleton property in Vinh Nguyen,
> > > Amit P. Sheth: Logical Inferences with Contexts of RDF
> > > > Triples (2017) [and previous references]; I’m not sure we need
> > > all that machinery, but some of the syntactic choices
> > > > are appealing.
> > > > I’l go deeper.
> > > > —e.
> 
>

Received on Friday, 17 February 2023 11:52:09 UTC