- From: Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 18:18:35 -0800
- To: Chris Mungall <cjmungall@lbl.gov>
- Cc: Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com>, Laufer <laufer@globo.com>, "Semantic Web'" <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACusdfQ_9aCAg-+UDCKny+G2to6x4dnKXB_oNMRBUQY+OXUyYg@mail.gmail.com>
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