Re: comment on N-ary relations draft

Peter,

Thanks for your comments.  We will address them in the next draft of the 
document.

-Chris

Dr. Christopher A. Welty, Knowledge Structures Group
IBM Watson Research Center, 19 Skyline Dr., Hawthorne, NY  10532     USA   
 
Voice: +1 914.784.7055,  IBM T/L: 863.7055, Fax: +1 914.784.7455
Email: welty@watson.ibm.com, Web: 
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty/



"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> 
Sent by: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
12/08/2004 08:03 AM

To
rector@cs.man.ac.uk
cc
public-swbp-wg@w3.org, joint-committee@daml.org
Subject
Re: comment on N-ary relations draft







I would strongly suggest that the note be changed to stress that the
driving distinction between the two representation patterns is
modelling-related and not logical.  I also suggest that that the note
mentions that there is no real logical difference between the two 
patterns,
and that OWL makes no distinction between the two patterns at all, at 
least
as they are presented in the note.

As well, I think that you should not use "representation pattern", as it
gives the wrong impression.  If the driving difference is some modelling
concern, and not logical structure, then it would be better to call the 
two
patterns "modelling patterns" instead.

The note also sabotages the point that Guss makes below about a naming
difference between the two patterns, as it names the relationship class 
and
the relationship instances in both patterns.  If this is the driving
difference, or even just a substantive difference, then it is exceedingly
strange that the note not only is very silent on the difference, 
mentioning
the issue at all only obliquely and only near its end, but actually
supresses it, using meaningful names for both patterns.  This supression 
is
so unusual so as to make me wonder whether the distinction is actually a
valid modelling distinction at all.  I, personally, see effectively no
modelling difference between the two patterns.  In particular, I see no
difference between the two patterns with regards to either the necessity 
or
suitability of naming any of the constructs they require.

As far as so-called "wizards" for promoting from simple properties go, I
don't see that there is any reason why either pattern should be preferred.
Similarly, if there is a wholesale need to promote simple properties then 
I
don't see any advantage to moving to pattern 1 over pattern 2.  In fact, 
if
uniformity is what is wanted, then why not just stick with only one
pattern?  Surely that would prevent confusion over the difference! Because
neither RDF/RDFS nor OWL really distinguish between the two patterns, why
should modellers be presented with the choice?

Finally, if the notions from Guarino and Welty's work are important here,
then surely the notions should be referenced, their relevance argued, and
their differential applicability to the patterns demonstrated.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research


[The contents of the previous emails have been rearranged to better show
the progression of the thread.]


From: Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: comment on N-ary relations draft
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 08:45:08 +0000

> All
> 
> Guus has said it more clearly than I could of.  The issue is modelling 
rather
> than logical structure. 
> 
> Another point is that it is common in the evolution of an ontology to 
start by
> using a simple property plus binary relation and then move to pattern 1 
-
> re-representing the property as a class - as it becomes clear that an 
n-ary
> relation is needed in at least some cases.  This is a common enough 
operation
> that we are implementing a "wizard" to make it easier, either for a 
single
> property or a whole group of properties. 
> 
> Often it happens that there is a large set of properties/cases that one 
wishes
> to model consistently.  In this case, if any of the cases needs to be 
modelled
> with pattern 1, then they all do.  Otherwise, modellers become hopeless 
confused
> as to which conceptual relationship is to be modelled in which way. 
> 
> Finally, version 1 matches to ontological notion of a "quality" and 
"quality
> space" as in Guarino and Welty's work, whereas this consideration is not
> relevant to pattern 2.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Alan

Guus Schreiber wrote:
>
> Peter, thanks very much for the comment.
> 
> Natasha and Alan are probably the best people to answer this, but I will
> give you my reading of the difference.
> 
> The distinction is of a modelling nature. In Pattern 1 you create a
> helper relation (represented as a class) which has (in most cases) no
> name in the domain of interest. In Pattern 2 the relation class has some
> name in the domain, typically a noun representing some activity (e.g.
> purchase, enrolment, transaction, subscription). I think this is an
> important difference of which developers should be aware. In particular,
> in the case of pattern 1 a an engineer might find it weird to construct
> a name from the blue, and it may help her/him to know it's actually good
> practice. The resulting representation is very similar, I agree. Maybe
> we should make this point more clear in the text.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> Guus
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> > I just read the N-ary relations draft and I am somewhat confused as to 
why
> > it has the two representation patterns.  I don't see that the two 
patterns
> > are different in any substantial way as the only difference between 
them is
> > the direction of one arrow.  This difference may matter in some 
formalisms
> > but doesn't in RDF/RDFS (as they are too weak to notice much 
difference) or
> > OWL (as it has the inverse construct).
> >
> > So, my question is why maintain the two different representation 
patterns?