Re: Vocabulary issues : relations, relationships, properties, patterns ... RE: [OEP] Draft of a note on n-ary relations

>Natasha
>
>I'm in the process of drafting a small annex to the note about 
>representation of n-ary
>relations in Topic Maps following Pattern 2, as you suggested I 
>could have a try at it.
>
>I stumbled on some vocabulary/conceptual issues in your document, so 
>I wanted to figure
>them out to make sure we will use the same words in the same meaning.
>
>First issue is difference in use, if any, between "relation" and 
>"relationship". This is
>something I always had trouble with, even in casual language, and 
>have been often
>corrected by native english speakers. In my native French, there is 
>a single word
>"relation" that matches both - which does not help. In my background 
>Mathematics land,
>only "Relation" is used on a formal way, which makes things easy. 
>You use both in the
>document, and I don't figure in the context what are the difference 
>in semantics, if any,
>in using either one.
>
>OTOH, Pat in a recent answer to this thread uses "relation-instance". This is
>crystal-clear to me, and I buy the notion of relation as a class. In 
>that case, and the
>question goes to Pat as well, could a (specific) "relationship" be 
>an instance of a
>(generic) "relation"? So we would have "relationship" = "relation 
>instance" ? This sounds
>to good to be true.

Yeh, I think it is too good to be true. The English usage is that 
'relationship' is just a more abstract version of essentially the 
same notion, eg Wordnet gives

relationship (as in "relation") n. : a relation between people; 
(`relationship' is often used where `relation' would serve (as in 
"the relationship between inflation and unemployment")) preferred 
usage of `relationship' is for human relations or states of 
relatedness; "the relationship between mothers and children" 

relationship (as in "state") n. : a state of connectedness between 
people (especially an emotional connection); "he didn't want his wife 
to know of the relationship" 

and for 'relation' (which can also be used as a noun, meaning, the 
thing that is related) it has

relation (as in "abstraction") n. : an abstraction belonging to or 
characteristic of two entities or parts together 

relation (as in "sexual intercourse") n. : the act of sexual 
procreation between a man and a woman; the man's penis is inserted 
into the woman's vagina and excited until orgasm and ejaculation 
occur 

relation (as in "relative") n. : a person related by blood or 
marriage; "police are searching for relatives of the deceased"; "he 
has distant relations back in New Jersey" 

relation (as in "narration") n. : an act of narration; "he was the 
hero according to his own relation"; "his endless recounting of the 
incident eventually became unbearable" 

relation (as in "dealings") n. : (usually plural) mutual dealings or 
connections among persons or groups: "international relations" 

and I notice that many of the 'more specific' instances of 
relationship correspond to the 'similar' instances of relation.

>Or is it that "relation" has a formal definition, whereas
>"relationship" is more casual in this context? Go figure.

Yeh, go figure. Like much of English, the distinctions are more in 
usage and nuances than directly in actual definitions.

There really isnt an obvious English word for the 'instance of 
relation' idea, which is probably why philosophers felt it necessary 
to come up things like 'trope' and 'situation' and 'actuality'.

In haste

Pat

>
>If we stick to "relation-as-class", in the case of relation 
>represented by a binary
>property I agree with Pat we have to clarify the relationship (oops) 
>between the relation
>and the property, which are both classes. Are they equivalent 
>classes? I would say no, but
>... In the case of n-ary relations, in any case, it's clear that the 
>relation is not a
>property. But if we stick to the notion of the relation-as-class, 
>what is the instance,
>exactly, in Pattern 2? I think we have to clarify the difference 
>between the individual
>instance of Purchase and the instance of Purchase-Relation (which, 
>IMO, would be difficult
>to describe as a single OWL object).
>
>In Topic Maps representation, things are clearer and cleaner for 
>those matters.
>Relation-classes are represented by association types, and 
>relation-instances by
>associations. So I have not much difficulty to represent and 
>describe the situation in
>Topic Map concepts and vocabulary, but I've hard time to figure 
>which objects they map on
>the OWL side.
>
>And, last but not least, what does "pattern" capture exactly? What 
>is the difference
>between the relation-class and the relation pattern?
>
>>  It's nowhere near as complicated or as controversial (we hope) as the
>>  Classes as Values one. In fact, it's rather simple, almost too simple
>>  to be a pattern.
>
>Do I complicate it on purpose? Are those issues to "sweep" also 
>under the carpet (a bit
>crowded down there)?
>
>Cheers
>
>Bernard
>
>Bernard Vatant
>Senior Consultant
>Knowledge Engineering
>Mondeca - www.mondeca.com
>bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
>
>
>>  -----Message d'origine-----
>>  De : public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
>>  [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]De la part de Natasha Noy
>>  Envoye : mercredi 5 mai 2004 03:16
>>  A : swbp
>>  Cc : Alan Rector
>>  Objet : [OEP] Draft of a note on n-ary relations
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  People seem to have agreed that doing a pattern on n-ary (reified)
>>  relations would be a useful thing to have. Alan Rector and I actually
>>  had a chance to work it out and you can see the first draft  of our
>>  effort at
>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004May/att-0003/n-
>>  aryRelations.html
>>
>>  It's nowhere near as complicated or as controversial (we hope) as the
>>  Classes as Values one. In fact, it's rather simple, almost too simple
>>  to be a pattern. On the other hand, it seems to be on a topic that many
>>  newcomers to OWL have questions on.
>>
>>  As usual, please feel free to poke holes in it and all feedback is
>>  welcome.
>>
>>  Thanks in advance,
>>
>>  Natasha and Alan
>>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes