- From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:26:35 -0700
- To: "Natasha Noy" <noy@smi.stanford.edu>, "John Madden" <john.madden@duke.edu>
- Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Good comments, and reply. A few more brief thoughts. Mike ============================================ Mike Uschold Tel: 425 865-3605 Fax: 425 865-2965 ============================================ > -----Original Message----- > From: Natasha Noy [mailto:noy@smi.stanford.edu] > Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 2:05 PM > To: John Madden > Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: comment (non-member) on N-ary relations > > > > Dear John, > > Thank you very much for your thoughtful review! Here are some > thoughts on your comments. > > > (1) ABSTRACT: "...more than one individual or value. These > > relations are called n-ary relations." > > This is purely stylistic, but... really, unary and binary > > relations are also n-ary relations (n=1, n=2). So even though I > > understand this has become the "loose" usage in some (database) > > circles, I think it's more appropriate to call these "multinary > > relations" (some people use "polyary", but I don't like that; the > > "multi-" prefix is in keeping with the Latin-derived pattern set > > by unary, binary, ternary, etc.) You could also call them "(n>2)- > > ary relations." Or "relations of arity >2". > > Technically, you are absolutely right of course. However, I think > most people would understand what we mean hear, and using > any of the > titles you suggest make it sound much more cumbersome (and, > perhaps, > quite a bit less clear for many). Thus, I would still stick > with n-ary. It would be easy to add a small footnote stating this technical point. > > (2) USE CASE EXAMPLES > > I think it's a shame to leave out the most classic example > > of all (and the one that in my experience most reliably produces > > insight): namely the between relation. How about an example like: > > "New York is located between Boston and Philadelphia" or "2 is an > > integer with magnitude between 1 and 3." > > Yes, this suggestion has come up before. The only reason we haven't > put in originally was our oversight. The reason we are reluctant to > put it in now is a very practical trade-off: we can't put it in > without taking it through all the examples, diagrams, pieces > of code, > etc. If there is an overwhelming feeling in the group that adding > this example would indeed make the document considerably more clear > and "bring it home" a lot a better, we will do that, of > course. If it > really won't change much, I'd rather save the effort ;) It would be easy to briefly mention the between example, w/o going to the trouble of doing it in detail. > > (3) PATTERN 1: "Christine has a breast tumor with high > probability." > > First of all, this is a wonderfully thought-provoking > > section, congratulations. But a suggestion: You've specifically > > chosen an example of a relation modified with a > probability. While > > I love the boldness of this, I think the example is infelicitous. > > For the unsuspecting reader, it could conflate issues of > > representational best practice in RDF-OWL with tough > issues of how > > to implement probabilistic reasoning in description logics. You > > leave yourself open to the objection whether this particular > > representation pattern is really suitable for use in construction > > of knowledge-bases upon which automated probabilistic inferencing > > will be performed. (To which, I think, the most honest answer is, > > "Nobody knows"; > > Actually, I think the answer is "definitely not" -- for that, you > will need something considerably more elaborate. > > This is a good point -- we should add a clear statement, > that we use > probability here only as an example, and don't suggest any "best > practices" in representing probabilities > > > since we really don't know how probabilistic extensions to > > description logics will best be implemented on the > Semantic Web. In > > fact, if I were making a public OWL ontology today that included > > probabilistic info, I'd probably use an annotation property.) > > > > There is also the related but intellectually prior objection, that > > the meaning of probability has multiple possible formal > semantics. > > So it would take more explanation to indicate what formal > sense of > > "probability" was intended here; and hence by reason of this > > vagueness, it's not an apposite choice as a paradigmatic example > > for any particular representation alternative. > > > > But I can think of alternative, less controversial examples of > > semantically modifying a relation with this pattern. Look at it > > this way: this pattern could be understood as an RDF/OWL-style > > formal language replacement for the natural language (NL) adverb > > construction. In NL, adverbs specialize or restrict verbs. The > > owl:objectProperty can be thought of as loosely analogous > (in some > > situations) to the verb in a natural language sentence. > OWL doesn't > > seem to "like" the idea of modifying owl:objectProperty > with other > > properties (i.e. while you can define an owl:objectProperty that > > has a domain of owl:ObjectProperty-in effect constituting an > > "adverb slot" on a property-this offers no obvious---to me--- > > advantages over simply using the OWL-native strategy of just > > defining a subproperty). > > > > By contrast, this pattern might be a reasonable alternative to > > subproperties in certain cases where NL would tend to > resort to an > > "adverb". For example, suppose you wanted to reason about a world > > that included facts like: > > > > "Conrad is flying slowly to Zanzibar with Jimmy." > > "Dave is driving to Abilene with Gene." > > "Ed is driving slowly to Butte with Howard." > > "Frank is driving at breakneck speed to Cucamonga with Izzy." > > > > One way would be to define properties isDrivingTo and isFlyingTo > > with domain Person and range Place, and then subproperties > > isFlyingSlowlyTo, isDrivingSlowlyTo and > > isDrivingAtBreakNeckSpeedTo. You'd still have to come up > with a way > > of representing the passenger relation. You could define a second > > property isTravellingWith with domain and range Person, but that > > seems to introduce some semantic redundancy that invites > mismodelling. > > > > A very reasonable alternative is to nominalize or "gerund-ify" the > > verb (recall that a gerund is noun formed from a verb, typically > > using the "-ing" ending) and represent this way: > > <image003.png> > > > > <image006.png> > > > > <image009.png> > > > > <image012.png> > > > > These examples are very close in spirit to Example 1, but they > > avoid the complications of using probability. They also show how > > this pattern can circumvent a "combinatorial explosion" of > > subproperties by allowing re-use of the hasSpeed property and its > > associated value partition. > > I agree with your second point (about circumventing the > combinatorial > explosion) -- and we should perhaps a paragraph discussing > this. I am > afraid that the idea of using speed won't much less controversial > than probability in some quarters :) One may interpret this as some > suggestion on representing temporal information, and of course we > don't want to do this in this note. I hope that the disclaimer that > we are *not* trying to make any suggestions on how to represent > probabilistic information, would be an acceptable compromise. > > > > (4) USE CASE 2: > > This one is very similar to Use Case 1, but I agree that > > it's distinguishable. In fact, I think it's the most familiar and > > broadly applicable of all the use cases presented, and I'd > give it > > first priority in the exposition. For example, Christine has > > severe, terminal pneumonia with multiorgan failure could be > > represented many ways, but one (by my lights) good one > would be to > > interpret it as: "Christine's got disease situation going > on: it's > > pneumonia, it's multiorgan failure, it's severe, and it's > > terminal". So it's a kind of pattern that will get used all the > > time in actual knowledgebases. > > <image015.png> > > Well, priority is subjective (as we learned in working on > this note). > Plus, we are not giving any explicit priority to any of the > use case. > One can also argue that the second use case is actually more > straightforward to represent, and most people reading the > note would > probably look at it because they had trouble with a > situation similar > to use case 1. This is of course also subjective, but I think that > however we change the order of use cases, there would be a good > argument to changing it to something else. > > > > > (5) USE CASE 3: Considerations when introducing a new class... > > In the diagrams, you use the "_:" notation in the > > "aggregating" node. This suggests these should be implemented as > > blank nodes. You address this, where you say "we did not give > > meaningful names" to them. Then at the end of the draft, just > > before the notes, you then add some more discussion of this issue > > in "Anonymous vs. named instances in these patterns". These two > > sections do not quite make the same suggestions, and ought to be > > reconciled and merged into a single discussion, in my view. > > Excellent point -- we'll make this more clear. > > > (d) At the very end of the draft where you discuss the utility of > > blank nodes, you say that blank nodes would be appropriate for > > cases where you want to indicate equivalency. But I > disagree; by my > > lights, that would actually be a great case for named nodes, > > because then you could explicitly state an owl:sameAs relation > > among several such nodes. > > I think the difference here is between stating equivalence > and having > an inference engine infer it. > > Thank you again for your comments! > > Natasha > > >
Received on Monday, 11 July 2005 17:26:53 UTC