Re: Relationships and Relations

I agree, it just depends on which ontology you’re using. In ISO 15926 an
Event has zero duration, whereas in schema.org things with non-zero
duration, like concerts and lectures, can also be Events. Cheers for the
good lesson, I'll try to be clear which definition I'm using going forward.

Regards,
Anthony

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:23 AM <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> Discussion about this are rather fruitless when you don’t share the same
> upper ontology.
>
> That is clear when we speak about alternative realities and fake news.
>
>
>
> It is therefore advisable to define what these terms really mean.
>
>
>
> Our (ISO 15926) definitions are:
>
>
>
>    - An *Event* is a space-time extension with zero time extension, and
>    marks the temporal boundaries of one or more individuals.
>    - A *Relationship* is the classification of an ordered pair. No two
>    relationships of the same classification have the same pair in the same
>    order. The order enables roles to be assigned to the related things.
>    - A *CauseOfEvent* is a Relationship that indicates that the caused
>    Event is caused by the causer Activity.
>       - EXAMPLE The relation that indicates that the testing activity
>       caused the event described as 'test completed' can be represented by an
>       instance of CauseOfEvent.
>    - etc (we have 201 such definitions)
>
>
>
> This does not mean that Michael’s statements are incorrect. They are just
> not ISO 15926 compliant.
>
>
>
> When you want to achieve interoperability between information systems in a
> certain domain of discourse you need to define such an upper ontology,
> extended by a vocabulary with taxonomies of instances and lower ontologies.
>
>
>
> About Relationship: many Relationship instances are the result of an
> *Activity*, e.g. Marrying – Marriage, Assembling – Assembly, Containing –
> Containment, Connecting – Connection, Employing – Employment, etc.
>
> We model that by typing a Relationship with a (meta) *ClassOfRelationshipWithSignature
> *that is defined as:
>
>    - A *ClassOfRelationshipWithSignature* is a *ClassOfRelationship* that
>    may have a *RoleAndDomain* specified for each end.  (where
>    RoleAndDomain simply stands for ‘a Class in a Role’)
>
>
>
> Here is a rather far-fetched example:
>
>
>
> [image: Afbeeldingsresultaat voor treinkoppeling]
>
>
>
> *The instance of ClassOfActivity CONNECTING-A-TRAIN*
>
> :CONNECTING-A-TRAIN rdf:type dm:ClassOfActivity .
>
> :CONNECTING-A-TRAIN :hasPartiipant1 RoleAndDomain1 .
>
> :CONNECTING-A-TRAIN :hasPartiipant2 RoleAndDomain2 .
>
> :RoleAndDomain1 rdfs:subClassOf rdl:LOCOMOTIVE .
>
> :RoleAndDomain1 rdfs:subClassOf rdl:PULLER .
>
> :RoleAndDomain2 rdfs:subClassOf rdl:TRAIN WAGON .
>
> :RoleAndDomain2 rdfs:subClassOf rdl:PULLED .
>
> *The instance of ClassOfRelationshipWithSignature*
>
> :CONNECTION-OF-A-TRAIN rdf:type dm:ClassOfRelationshipWithSignature .
>
> :CONNECTION-OF-A-TRAIN :hasClassOfEnd1 RoleAndDomain1 .
>
> :CONNECTION-OF-A-TRAIN :hasClassOfEnd2 RoleAndDomain2 .
>
> *The typed Relationship*
>
> :myRelationship rdf:type tpl:CONNECTION-OF-A-TRAIN ;
>
> :myRelationship :hasPuller myLocomotive ;
>
> :myRelationship :hasPulled myTrainWagon .
>
>
>
> An instance of Relationship, typed with this metaclass CONNECT*ION*-OF-TRAIN,
> can be linked to an instance of Activity, typed with ClassOfActivity CONNECT
> *ING*-A-TRAIN, with an instance of above *CauseOfEvent*.
>
> When I connect a train I cause the Event ‘train is connected’, which leads
> to a state that the locomotive and the trainwagon instances are connected,
> a fact that is recorded with an instance of ConnectionOfTrain relationship.
>
>
>
> I’ll get off my soapbox :)
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Hans
>
> 15926.org
>
> _____________________________________________
>
> *From:* Anthony Moretti <anthony.moretti@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* dinsdag 12 november 2019 03:19
> *To:* Chris Mungall <cjmungall@lbl.gov>
> *Cc:* Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com>; Laufer <laufer@globo.com>;
> Semantic Web' <semantic-web@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Relationships and Relations
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>