Re: Relationships and Relations

> And yeah Relation, Property, and Relationship can definitely be classes
of things, in my view Relationship is simply a subclass of Event.

The marriage is an event, it brings about the fact that two one is the
husband/wife of the other. My birth brought about two parent/child
relationships between me and my parents.  By birth is not the relationship.
Signing a employment contract is an event that brings about a relationship
between the employee and employer. Relationships spring from events, they
cannot be assumed to be identical to these events.   You can view an
employment relationship that lasted 10 years as an event with a start and
end date. In that case the relationship and the event are more blurred.

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 11:45 AM Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Hans
>
> I've brought this topic up a couple of times in other forums, albeit for
> linguistic reasons, and it's just my opinion but I think the distinction is
> useful. Taking the natural language/philosophical definitions, in my view
> it's something like this:
>
>     Relation: isHusbandOf
>     Property: isHusbandOf Pete
>     Relationship: Pete isHusbandOf Mary
>
> And yeah Relation, Property, and Relationship can definitely be classes of
> things, in my view Relationship is simply a subclass of Event.
>
> I take this interpretation mainly from these very good articles:
>     https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relations/
>     https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties/
>
> Comparing disciplines I see equivalencies between:
>     Relation (philosophy and natural language)
>     Predicate (RDF)
>     Property (object-oriented programming)
>
> And between:
>     Property (philosophy and natural language)
>     Predicate-object pair (RDF)
>     Property-value pair (object-oriented programming)
>
> And between:
>     Relationship (philosophy and natural language)
>     Subject-predicate-object triple (RDF Statement) (RDF)
>
> I hope it it can still help even though it's all simply my own opinion,
> there are definitely others opinions.
>
> Regards
> Anthony
>
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 12:12 PM Laufer <laufer@globo.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Hans,
>>
>> Maybe the singleton property could help:
>>
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4350149/
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Laufer
>>
>> Em 09/11/2019 9:24, hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl escreveu:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I would like to hear your opinion about the following.
>>
>>
>>
>> I propose to make a distinction between the terms ‘Relationship’ an
>> ‘Relation’ (‘Property’), not for linguistic reasons but to avoid
>> reification when that is not necessary.
>>
>> I know that I am on thin ice, so be it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Right now we have  something like
>>
>>    - Pete isHusbandOf Mary
>>    - Mary isWifeOf Pete.
>>
>> But these *Relation*s/Properties actually are Roles in a missing
>> *Relationship* called Marriage.
>>
>>
>>
>> We can also state:
>>
>>    - MarriagePeteMary hasHusband Pete
>>    - MarriagePeteMary hasWife Mary
>>
>> where MarriagePeteMary is Relationship and an instance of the owl:Class
>> ‘Marriage’, or rather its specialization ‘Hetero Marriage’.
>>
>> As a consequence we can easily represent information about that
>> Relationship.
>>
>>
>>
>> It appears to me that there are many such Relationships that qualify for
>> being an owl:Class in their own right.
>>
>> Think about Parenthood, Composition, Employment, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please concur or shoot.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Hans
>>
>> 15926.org
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> 劳费尔
>>
>> .  .  .  .. .  .
>> .        .   . ..
>> .     ..       .
>>
>

-- 

Michael Uschold
   Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts
   http://www.semanticarts.com
   LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/michaeluschold
   Skype, Twitter: UscholdM