W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > November 2019

Re: Relationships and Relations

From: Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 18:18:35 -0800
Message-ID: <CACusdfQ_9aCAg-+UDCKny+G2to6x4dnKXB_oNMRBUQY+OXUyYg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Mungall <cjmungall@lbl.gov>
Cc: Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com>, Laufer <laufer@globo.com>, "Semantic Web'" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hi Michael
If I can refine that minor point, just my opinion again, but Relationship
and Event seem to be equivalent actually, rather than one being a subclass
of the other. An interesting thing to look at is the YAGO knowledge base
<https://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/departments/databases-and-information-systems/research/yago-naga/yago/>,
where every statement can have a start time, end time, and location
attached to it. The main point I wanted to make though was that it's useful
to distinguish between a Relation and a Relationship in my opinion. The
Event/Relationship argument is fascinating though.
Regards,
Anthony

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 6:12 PM Chris Mungall <cjmungall@lbl.gov> wrote:

> The singleton property pattern can be problematic with OWL. I have a draft
> of an article about this with Michel Dumontier:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jtEZCDQ26R2YnqXr_XcPEgsC9yiWOFqWAR0B5TDFBnA/edit
>
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 5:42 PM Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
Received on Tuesday, 12 November 2019 02:18:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:51:39 UTC