Re: Relationships and Relations

Maybe my lack of formal notation, given that this are nothing more than a
few notes I had for myself, dificults understanding. I've tried to format
and clarify the document a little bit. Also I include in this reply the
Semantic Web lists for however other opinions my fuzzy documents may raise.
Regards,

Sebastián.
http://snxama.blogspot.com


On Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 11:41 AM <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl> wrote:

> Hi Sebastián,
>
>
>
> When reading your document I didn’t have an “Aha-erlebnis”.
>
> Actually we have something like that in the ISO 15926-2 upper ontology
> <http://15926.org/topics/data-model/index.htm> which covers our domain of
> discourse “Integration of life-cycle data for process plants including oil
> and gas production facilities”.
>
> We also have that in Turtle format at
> http://15926.org/topics/data-model/owl-code.htm and in FOL at
> http://15926.org/topics/data-model-in-FOL/index.html
>
>
>
> In case you would be interested please read
> http://15926.org/topics/ISO-15926-Portal/
>
>
>
> And if you want, we also have all Relationships and ClassOfRelationship’s
> in FOL:  http://15926.org/topics/prototemplates/index.htm
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Hans
>
> 15926.org <http://data.15926.org/>
>
> ____________________________________________
>
> *From:* Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* donderdag 28 november 2019 00:45
> *To:* HansTeijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
> *Subject:* Re: Relationships and Relations
>
>
>
> Hans,
>
>
>
> The subject of modelling entities and their nature by the kind of their
> relations kept me thinking for a while. As long as I can see, there are
> relationships classifying some sort of domain / range sets and this players
> get some sort of type "promotion" being involved in a relationship
> (mapping) instance. Male: husband is an example of this "metaclass"
> relation which could be stated by an OWL restriction or RDFS.
>
>
>
> But there is also the relationship of simple properties with a value (SPO
> statements) for example. This also leads to some kind of "typing", having a
> salary and a position, for example, and being an "Employee". Being the core
> of all this stuff: RDF as means of stating relationship / relations between
> resources, it is worthwhile giving this a little twist.
>
>
>
> I think both sorts of modelling relationships (reified or inferred by
> attributes) are complementary and one should be able to infer or aggregate
> one from another. For this purpose I'm trying to work out some layers
> conforming a metamodel which abstracts this from further raw ontologies
> data into a "Reference Model" on which one should be able then to render
> ontologies such as ISO with a little bit more granted than RDF/RDFS alone..
>
>
>
> Sending you a copy of a very early draft. I also pursuit the purpose of
> doing some ontology mathing so let me know if the concepts or the notation
> is not clear.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Sebastián.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019, 6:47 PM <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Sebastián!
>
> Regards,
>
> Hans
>
> 15926.org
>
> ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­________________________________________
>
> *From:* Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* zondag 10 november 2019 17:59
> *To:* HansTeijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
> *Subject:* Re: Relationships and Relations
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Maybe is Class (relation) and instance (relationship) being the things
> that could be asserted for each (domain / range for classes, pairs of
> "roles" for instances and attributes for both: as property graph) the
> difference between both.
>
>
>
> A naive approach of render this in pseudo RDF / RDFS:
>
>
>
> Marriage : Relation;
>
>
>
> Husband domain Marriage;
>
>
>
> Husband range Male;
>
>
>
> Wife domain Marriage;
>
>
>
> Wife range Female;
>
>
>
> Marriage properties (date, etc.);
>
>
>
> aMarriage : Marriage;
>
>
>
> aMarriage husband Pete;
>
>
>
> aMarriage wife Mary;
>
>
>
> Marriage attributes (domain / range). Reified Relation instances entails
> statements (links, attributes in property graphs) for Relationship roles /
> players attributes:
>
>
>
> Peter marriedWith / husbandOf Mary; domain: spouse / husband; range:
> spouse / wife;
>
>
>
> Mary marriedWith / wifeOf Peter; domain: spouse / wife; range: spouse /
> husband;
>
>
>
> marriedWith / husbandOf / wifeOf statements in a CSPO context: aMarriage;
> There should be an inference method materializing inferences of role
> instances attributes according the Relation class Relationship instance
> roles they play.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Sebastián
>
> http://snxama.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019, 8:04 AM <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl> wrote:
>
> Hi Pat,
>
>
>
> Thank you for that very last sentence: “....saying that the relation is a
> class actually makes good sense.“ !
>
>
>
> It gives a (partial) answer to a question I couldn’t find an answer for in
> the impenetrable W3C documentation: What qualifies as owl:Class?
>
> It is, to me, a general problem that those documents don’t give generic
> definitions, only examples.
>
>
>
> After some searching I found:  “In general classes are used to group
> individuals that have something in common in order to refer to them. Hence,
> classes essentially represent sets of individuals.”
>
> Who then is the judge which “individuals” qualify to be grouped into a
> class? The folks who designed an OWL  parser? And where can I find what
> qualifies as “individual”? Something you can touch? But is Xmas 2018 not an
> individual, a member of all Xmas’s since the year zero?
>
>
>
> It seems to me that an official W3C vocabulary should be composed (*and*
> maintained!) that defines everything, that you can run into, in formal,
> consistent, textual definitions, including what is legal in which context..
>
> To illustrate my confusion I digged up a diagram that I made 13 years ago
> in an attempt to understand that confusing stuff. It was based on what I
> read in the various W3C douments.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I guess this is what “organic growth” entails :)
>
>
>
> Thanks again for your attention, and thanks to those other folks who also
> responded.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Hans
>
> 15926.org
>
> ________________________________________
>
> *From:* Patrick J Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
> *Sent:* zondag 10 november 2019 01:31
> *To:* Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
> *Cc:* Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Relationships and Relations
>
>
>
> I  just realized that my first paragraph, below, misses the point
> completely, because you don't want to talk about the property, but rather a
> particular case of it. But the more general point remains: you can use the
> same name for the relation and for the class of ‘relationships'; in fact,
> they can be the same thing. So in your case you could write
>
>
>
> Pete isMarriedTo Mary
>
>
>
> MarriagePeteMary rdf:type isMarriedTo
>
>
>
> MarriagePeteMary hasHusband Pete
>
>
>
> where hasHusband is now a ‘role’ property, like timeOf.  Or, of course,
> you could keep separate names, like Marriage for the class and married for
> the property. I like the punning version, myself, but YMMV.
>
>
>
> I wouldn't call MarriagePeteMary a ‘relationship’, though, as that feels
> like a category error. It is more like a fact or a circumstance: it has
> many other preperties than just those linking it to Pete and Mary. For
> example, it has a lifetime, and it was begun at some definite place, and it
> might have a certificate, and lots of other things. It's more like a
> particular instance of a relationship, if relationships had instances,
> which is why biting that bullet and saying that the relation is a class
> actually makes good sense.
>
>
>
> Pat
>
>
>
> On Nov 9, 2019, at 5:19 PM, Patrick J Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Hans
>
>
>
> In RDF, RDFS and the ‘full’ versions of OWL, you can use the same IRI as
> both a property name and as a subject, so you can simply talk about the
> property without needing to make your distinctions. (The same technique is
> used in the vastly more expressive language ISO Common Logic, so you can
> rest assured that doing this does not break anything in the foundations.)
> The first version of OWL-DL prohobited this, but the more recent OWL2-DL
> allows it as a form of ‘punning’, so again there is no pressing need to
> make your distinction: just use the relation name in both roles.
>
>
>
> As others have said, there is already quite a literature (not just in
> Webbish, but going back into philosophical logic and formal linguistics) on
> this general topic. Senences describing actions are often analyzed as
> talking about ‘events’ or ‘heppenings’ and some collection of other things
> which bear relationships such as agentOf, placeOf, timeOf and so on to the
> single central entity, which is classified by the verb. So “Jim cut the
> bread in the kitchen quickly and silently” asserts that an event classed as
> a Cutting (an OWL class of events) exists with JIm as its agent and
> something classed as Bread as its object and having the location Kitchen
> and the properties Silent and Fast. This style of representation has many
> advantages, but it does require everyone to use it consistently if they are
> going to be able to communicate reliably. But if you don’t want to get
> deeply into this stuff, there is no principled barrier to just conflating
> your relation and relationship ideas back into one, and using OWL2 or RDFS
> directly.
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
>
>
> Pat
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 9, 2019, at 6:24 AM, <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl> <
> hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>