Re: Examples of Syntax and semantics

On 7 Apr 2006, at 11:04, <tim.glover@bt.com> <tim.glover@bt.com> wrote:
> Henry,
>
>>> Henry,
>>> Thank you for the useful reply.
>>> But I don't think this deals with the issues of mediation between
>>> two similar but semantically disjoint ontologies.
>
>> Show me one, and I'll look at how we can link them (if it does not
>> take too long)
>
>
> OK, here is one attempt at a challenge (adam - sorry if I have missed
> the point)
>
> ********************************************
> Imagine 4 ontologies. All describe the class People, and subclasses
> Married and Unmarried.
>
> Suppose that Clive was married but is now divorced. Diane was married
> but is now widowed. Alice has never been married, and Bill is married.


I have added below the statements in N3. The reason I add the graphs
is just to clarify where the data was fetched from (after all we  
don't just
get statements out of the blue). This is especially important as we have
ontologies that are time dependent.

> * In ontology 1, Clive and Diane are unmarried (unmarried means
> unmarried now)

{
ppl:Clive a o1:Unmarried .
ppl:Diane a o1:Unmarried .
} :retrieved [ :at "2006-03-23T10:00:00Z";
                :from <http://eg.org/couples1> ] ;
   :name :g1 .

> * In ontology 2, Clive and Diane are married (married means has gone
> through a marriage ceremony).

{
ppl:Clive a o2:Married .
ppl:Diane a o2:Married .
} :retrieved [ :at "2006-03-23T10:00:00Z";
                :from <http://eg.org/couples2> ] ;
   :name :g2 .

> * In ontology 3, Clive and Diane are both married and unmarried  
> (married
> means has been married once, unmarried means not married now)

{
ppl:Clive a o3:Married, o3:Unmarried .
ppl:Dian  a o3:Married, o3:Unmarried .
} :retrieved [ :at "2006-03-23T10:00:00Z";
                :from <http://eg.org/couples3> ] ;
   :name :g3 .

> * In ontology 4 Clive is unmarried, Bill is married, and Alice and  
> Diane
> are neither married nor unmarried (un-married means having been  
> through
> a divorce. Married means married now)

{
ppl:Clive a o4:Unmarried .
ppl:Bill a o4:Married .
ppl:Alice a o4:NeitherMarriedNorUnmarried .
ppl:Diane a o4:NeitherMarriedNorUnmarried .
} :retrieved [ :at "2006-03-23T10:00:00Z";
                :from <http://eg.org/couples3> ] ;
   :name :g4 .

>
> How do you map these ontologies?
>


If someone has been married at a time, then they have been Married once.

# Both o1 and o3 are equivalent. They mean unmarried now.
o1:Unmarried owl:equivalentClass o3:Unmarried .

# If you have gone through a Marriage ceremony then you have been  
married I suppose
# otherwise ignore
o3:Married owl:equivalentClass o2:Married .

#you can't be married now and unmarried now
o4:Married owl:complementOf o1:Unmarried .

# someone who has been through a divorce was married once
{ ?p a o4:Unmarried . } => { ?p a o3:Married . } .

# let us defined o4:NeitherMarriedNorUnmarried

o4:NeitherMarriedNorUnmarried owl:complementOf [ owl:unionOf  
(o4:Married o4:Unmarried ) ] .

# Some of the classes are indexicals. Let us mark the time dependend  
classes as follows:

o1:Unmarried owl:subClassOf tm:TimeDependent .
o3:Unmarried owl:subClassOf tm:TimeDependent .
o4:Married owl:subClassOf tm:TimeDependent .

Because we have fetched all the above graphs simultaneously, we can  
merge them together
and place them all in one big time dependent graph.

I am sure one could do more. But perhaps there are some tests you  
would like us
to try out?

> ***********************************************
>
>> That notion is one that we keep telling you is not part of the
>> Semantic Web. It is *your* vision of the Semantic Web.
>> You have a straw man argument. You imagine we are doing something we
>> are not doing. Then you prove that what you imagine we are doing is
>> impossible. And you wrongly conclude that what we are doing is
>> impossible. Please distinguish between what you think we are doing  
>> and
>
>> what we are doing.
>
> Who are "We" exactly? People that you happen to agree with? ;-)
>
> Tim.