Re: Relationships and Relations

Singleton properties are interesting, I have read that paper before. I
suspect it may be overkill for what Hans needs.

Michael

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