{“Subject Node”: “Tom Smith”,“Predicate”: “Product Owner”,“Object Node”: “Product ABC”}1. The Subject Node points to all data about "Tom Smith”.2. The Object Node points to all relevant data about "Product ABC”.3. The Predicate points to all Relationships that contain the Predicate “Product Owner”.(NOTE: Each of the above elements (Nodes & Predicates) can also point to other things like Voids or Holes, even though the above example does not show it.)(NOTE: We’ve already proven all of these pointer types in our research so we know they do, in fact, exist and work as described above.)
--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ontolo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontolog-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/D33E74BD.145BF9%25Frank.Guerino%40if4it.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
Dear Frank,
If you take a nodes and edges view of the world then in principal any edge can be replaced by a node and two more edges. The problem is where to stop? The thing to note is that you can say something about nodes (more edges to other nodes) but not about edges. In my analysis my conclusion was that there was no more information to record after you had identified the state playing the role in a relationship. So no point going beyond that. That is how ISO15926 works. You can always have convenient short cuts across that base layer. In SO 15926 these are templates.
Regards
Matthew West
--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ontolo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontolog-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/57191193.9070100%40openlinksw.com.
--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ontolo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontolog-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/D33E74BD.145BF9%25Frank.Guerino%40if4it.com.
{“Marriage Transaction ID”: “1234”,“Marriage Date”: “1/1/1999”,“Spouses”: ["Mary Smith", "John Doe”],“Marriage Location”: “Facility XYZ”}This means that I can now have many specific Marriages that can be represented just like the above and which can exist as individual Nodes in a Graph.Also, there are many relationships that support the above marriage transaction instance (i.e. “a specific Marriage”)…Person Mary Smith is related as a Spouse to Person John DoePerson John Doe is related as a Spouse to Person Mary SmithLocation Facility XYZ is related as a Marriage Location to Marriage Transaction ID 1234Location Facility XYZ is related as a Marriage Location for Person Mary SmithLocation Facility XYZ is related as a Marriage Location for Person John DoeDate “1/1/1999” is related as a Marriage Date to Marriage Transaction ID 1234Date “1/1/1999” is related as a Marriage Date for Person Mary SmithDate “1/1/1999” is related as a Marriage Date for Person John Doeetc. (too many too list)This means that the Marriage transaction instance, above, exists as a singular Noun Instance (i.e. a Node in a Graph), not as a Relationship, and has many Relationships that help support it and that help categorize it as a Marriage.
Person Mary Smith is related as a Spouse to Person John Doe
X causes YY is caused by X
“Most scientists” implies that in a set of all scientists (all Scientist Nodes in a Graph) there exists a subset of specific scientists (“most but not all” that represent some of those Scientist Nodes) that believe the two cause & effect relationships above. This implies that most Scientist Nodes have existing Relationships between them and each of the above cause & effect Relationships, such that the number of relationships between those that believe is a higher count/percentage than those that do not believe (or don’t care).
These matters have been thrashed out over the years (note comment from David Price about Reification etc.).
-- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
Person Jane Doe is related as a Product Owner to Product XYZ
V1: Person Jane Doe is related as a Product Owner to Product XYZ (started existence 1/1/1992)V2: Person Jane Doe is related as a Product Owner to Product XYZ (stopped existence 12/31/2000)V3: Person Jane Doe is related as a Product Owner to Product XYZ (started existence 1/1/2016)
Hi Kingsley,
Thanks for the pointer to OSDE. We use a different approach. We have developed a data compiler (called NOUNZ) that, among many other things, harvests Semantic Relationships from Nodes, which exist as real data records within a specific context or domain. For example, in the sample links I provided, the domain is “an Enterprise” and the Nodes are the data types and records found in common enterprises, where the Relationships are those found between such context-specific records.
I took a look at OSDI and found it very interesting. My limited assessment leads me to believe that difference between OSDI and NOUNZ is the approach used to arrive at an ontology specific model that is loaded with real data.
- In OSDE, it appears that we create named graphs from individual documents right in and from the editor, which leads to the ontology specific model as a living artifact. This seems to imply a paradigm where we work “one document at a time.” I found the OSDS OSDE integration video, which used the single web page “CIO Summit Survey” as an example, to be quite telling. It shows the extraction and creation of relationships being done manually, one at a time, which could take forever when dealing with many web pages.
- In the case of NOUNZ, we use large quantities of structured data from multiple sources (e.g. Systems/Applications) as inputs, parse that data, map it to ontological elements, and then yield an output that contains many named graphs (with many overlaps between them), all which are part of an ontology specific model that represents a domain. This allows us to deal with millions of different data records of different data types, which may have many tens of millions of relationships, and reverse engineer the results directly from the data. Also, the goal is to ensure that the outputs are in human and computer consumable forms because most people, for example, don’t speak RDF, WOL, SKOS, Turtle, etc.
I have ideas about ways to combine the two paradigms.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/D33F9EE9.146381%25Frank.Guerino%40if4it.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Hi Kingsley,
You wrote: “OSDE (the Editor) simply presents an interface for creating, editing, and saving sentences. The assumption here are… [1]… and [2]…"
Yes, I understand. Just as an FYI, in the case of [1], I believe the containment assumptions suggest composition of “Data" at all levels:
- a pixel is data
- a character composed of multiple structured pixels is data
- a word composed of multiple structured characters is data
- a phrase composed of multiple structured words and characters is data
- a sentence composed of multiple phrases, words and characters is data
- Etc.
I believe that Data is composed of Data. Given that all data can be decomposed, I find that it is difficult to point to a singularity or single Datum element because what is one person’s Datum is another person’s Data. This doesn’t mean I’m right but simply guides the way I work.
You wrote: “Most people speak in sentences which are made up of a subject, predicate, and objects. That's been the case for eons. Unfortunately, we have this thing called "modern computing" that's rife with bizarre marketing-oriented buzzwords that are simply messing up everything and actually undoing eons of progress, exponentially. "
I agree. In my own work, I always think in terms of human digestible knowledge constructs and work backwards, later retrofitting for computers. I always, however, try to pre-apply constraints that computers expect as a means of how to structure and represent those knowledge constructs so that it becomes easier to translate for computers, later.
You wrote: “Paradigms aren't the point of difference here per se., the tools in question serve different purposes :) “ and provided links…
Maybe I’m wrong but I think the tools attempt to serve very similar purposes, which is to deconstruct data into one or more Graphs and then use said Graphs to facilitate better knowledge management.
What paths each tool has taken to achieve such results and their respective maturity levels are certainly different and can result in some very interesting conversations.
The last link, in particular, is very cool. The views of data lead me to a question: What are you doing to make the outputs Human-Readable/Digestible so that Jane Doe, who sits in and is brilliant at Finance but who has no technical experience can traverse, explore, digest, translate and get to understanding from the outputs, easily? The outputs are not exactly user friendly.
--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ontolo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontolog-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/D33FC4D1.146568%25Frank.Guerino%40if4it.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/571A6F26.2020609%40openlinksw.com.
--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ontolo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontolog-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/15DF6E68-5F54-42F4-A7EC-DC7974E30215%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
My Best,Frank--
Frank Guerino, Chairman
The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
http://www.if4it.com
1.908.294.5191 (M)
--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ontolo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontolog-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/D33E74BD.145BF9%25Frank.Guerino%40if4it.com.
On Apr 22, 2016 11:36 AM, "Christopher Menzel" <chris....@gmail.com> wrote:
> [that the analysis of belief contexts is not trivial]
(Assuming propositional attitudes & propositions) are there any recent developments which suggest plausible representations?
Have you returned to this since Menzel (1993) and IKL (2006)?
Also, ex RDF Named Graphs quodlibet.
Simon
IKL (2006). IKL Specification Document. Available at http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/IKL/SPEC/SPEC.html
Menzel, Christopher (1993). The Proper Treatment of Predication in Fine-grained Intensional Logic, in Philosophical Perspectives, 7, Language and Logic, pp. 61–87, Ridgeview Publishing Company, Atascadero, CA
On Apr 22, 2016 11:36 AM, "Christopher Menzel" <chris....@gmail.com> wrote:> [that the analysis of belief contexts is not trivial]
(Assuming propositional attitudes & propositions) are there any recent developments which suggest plausible representations?
Have you returned to this since Menzel (1993) and IKL (2006)?
Person Jane Doe is a “Subject Matter Expert” for Product XYZ
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/D3412A82.14687B%25Frank.Guerino%40if4it.com.
Hi Frank,
Let me explain how we model Relationships and relations in ISO 15926.
In ISO 15926 we have the entity types Relationship, ClassOfRelationship, and even ClassOfClassOfRelationship, each with subtypes.
These have two attributes | properties | relations (in EXPRESS |
RDF | ISO 15926 )
Object1 << relation1 << Relationship >>
relation2 >> Object2
--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ontolo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontolog-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/D33F8548.1461D1%25Frank.Guerino%40if4it.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/5889214e-a11e-3352-541b-e7a8d79d0676%40quicknet.nl.
Do you mean that “X causes Y” is a proposition (and so has a truth value), and that “that X causes Y” refers to a proposition (and so you don’t know its truth value)?
Thanks,
Leo
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/64F3BC9D-C7A4-4BBF-A748-A81D96B44305%40ihmc.us.
The usual linguistic notion is that you don’t know the truth value of an embedded statement, but that the verbs and other locutions of the main statement containing the embedded statement gives you some indication on how you should treat the embedded statement. Linguistically, verbs like “know”, “assert”, “regret”, etc., as opposed to “believe”, “think”, etc., allow the truth value of the embedded statement to “leak” out to the encompassing statement, i.e., as a kind of presuppostion. This is typically considered pragmatic construal, and analyses go back to (at least) Kartunnen (1973). See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presupposition/. This is an intensional context, as Chris and Pat indicate. Propositional attitudes are notoriously hard: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prop-attitude-reports/. In AI, folks such as Fagin et al [1] have attempted to unpack some of this.
Thanks,
Leo
[1] Fagin, Ronald; Halpern, Joseph Y.; Moses, Yoram; Vardi, Moshe Y. 1996. Reasoning about Knowledge, MIT Press.
From: Obrst, Leo J.
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2016 9:14 PM
To: ontolog-forum <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>; Christopher Menzel <chris....@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Are Relationship Triples also Nodes?
Do you mean that “X causes Y” is a proposition (and so has a truth value), and that “that X causes Y” refers to a proposition (and so you don’t know its truth value)?
Thanks,
Leo
From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ontolo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Pat Hayes
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2016 1:40 AM
To: ontolog-forum <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>; Christopher Menzel <chris....@gmail.com>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/64F3BC9D-C7A4-4BBF-A748-A81D96B44305%40ihmc.us.
--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ontolo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontolog-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CADE8KM6hpr5eKC2pr1mO3BQ8YoqiTdMb6sd5Zs_ePcmX0DvtYQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Do you mean that “X causes Y” is a proposition (and so has a truth value)
, and that “that X causes Y” refers to a proposition (and so you don’t know its truth value)?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CY1PR09MB0826BA2DA5DEC0B02FC9E521DD610%40CY1PR09MB0826.namprd09.prod.outlook.com.
I think Pat's main point was simply that the two belong to entirely distinct grammatical categories.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/staumakg7045p0kugro7hivb.1461469354173%40email.android.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
The usual linguistic notion is that you don’t know the truth value of an embedded statement,
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CY1PR09MB0826CBDCDBD50EE60B86333ADD610%40CY1PR09MB0826.namprd09.prod.outlook.com.
--All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.---You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.To post to this group, send email to ontolo...@googlegroups.com.Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontolog-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/571BF5B4.7010705%40bestweb.net.
Hi Frank,
[FG] You state that “A Relationship represents a fact (observed, asserted).” Is such a statement accurate? For example, for many years in our human history, people related “Earth” to “Flat” and related the “Sun” to a “Circular Orbit” and Revolves Around “Earth.” It would therefore appear that not all relationships are facts.
[HT] A temporal part of the Earth was, in those days, asserted to be flat. That temporal part was ended at the time it was proven to be spherical, and a new temporal part began to be the placeholder of that information.
[FG] There are many Relationships…
Role No |
Role Name |
Role Object Type |
1 |
hasPropertyPossessor |
|
2 |
hasPropertyType |
|
3 |
valPropertyValue |
|
4 |
hasScale |
--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ontolo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontolog-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/D341BF0D.1469C5%25Frank.Guerino%40if4it.com.
Ok, sure, I agree.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/4A9580D7-33B1-42C7-9205-7EA4F216228C%40ihmc.us.
Frank,
If you are realist, then you will say that reality didn’t change, just our apprehension and understanding of it. Realists consider reality existing independent of human observers of it. The task of science is largely to increase our understanding of physical reality. In addition, with better instruments (microscopes, telescopes, etc.) we extend our apprehension of it.
A good ontology should correspond to our best understanding of reality.
Thanks,
Leo
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/D341C7EB.146A5C%25Frank.Guerino%40if4it.com.
I’m redirecting this back to the ontology forum, rather than the ontology summit. Apparently Rob had problems posting to the latter.
Thanks,
Leo
From: ontolog...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ontolog...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 2:35 PM
To: ontolog...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Ontology Summit] FW: [ontolog-forum] Are Relationship Triples also Nodes?
Since my google is stuck on rejecting my email, and won't let me post on o-forum, here is my response to a topic going on there.
Leo wrote:>
If you are realist, then you will say that reality didn’t change, just our apprehension and understanding of it. Realists consider reality existing independent of human observers of it. The task of science is largely to increase our understanding of physical reality. In addition, with better instruments (microscopes, telescopes, etc.) we extend our apprehension of it.
A good ontology should correspond to our best understanding of reality.
I suggest this is more the behavior of a physicist per se, than a scientist in general. Science is so vastly much wider than physics! Look at the total number of faculty in a physics department compared to the number in the entire science faculty! They all believe, as I do, that they are doing science, and many of them have little concern about physics details, preferring the depth of medicine, biology, psychology, sociology, geology, et ad finitum. Yes, there is physics at the bottom of the turtle stack everywhere, but physics has no part in the other sciences' daily experiences.
Computer science, for example, is about the understanding of how machines can be programmed, organized, improved, and used to provide symbolic assistance to human users. That has little to do with physics, yet lots to do with logic, math, classification, theories and so forth.
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper,
Rich Cooper,
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CY1PR09MB082690E46B005AA868299C3FDD610%40CY1PR09MB0826.namprd09.prod.outlook.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontology Summit content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA
4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontology-summit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
ontology-summ...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
ontolog...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontology-summit.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontology-summit/0c7901d19e58%2405704710%241050d530%24%40com.
Rich,
It’s perhaps clearer with the physical sciences, but even the social and computational sciences use the physical sciences. In any case these others are intended to be based on reality, don’t you think?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CY1PR09MB0826576D461148DDAA4BCB3FDD610%40CY1PR09MB0826.namprd09.prod.outlook.com.
Sorry, should be: “Rich”.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CY1PR09MB0826576D461148DDAA4BCB3FDD610%40CY1PR09MB0826.namprd09.prod.outlook.com.
I think you are interested in data structures. That’s fine, for local notions you have control over. The problem comes when you try to generalize those, i.e., you invent database technology, and then go down that path of many structural model solutions, all different, and then try to apply those to larger user and computational units, i.e., partners, enterprises, communities, etc. However, the common reality is what you scratch on eventually.
Thanks,
Leo
From: ontolog...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ontolog...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 3:53 PM
To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com
Cc: ontolog...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [Ontology Summit] FW: [ontolog-forum] Are Relationship Triples also Nodes?
LO:> Sorry, should be: “Rich”.
RC:> No problem. You stimulatingly wrote:
It’s perhaps clearer with the physical sciences, but even the social and computational sciences use the physical sciences. In any case these others are intended to be based on reality, don’t you think?
Thanks,
Leo
No, that is the problem I run into as a computer scientist. In order to get the operational capability in software, there are REPRESENTATIONS of the real world, or of the interpretation of physical and nonphysical (information, theories, assertions) about nearly anything real or unreal. It ranges from the physical world, such as models of quantum world situations for the reality focused, or the world soft sciences, which have only human observations of situations, possibly only social, not reality based.
Working with representations, as computer science does, has no direct relationship with reality. That relationship is created in the mind of the programmer, who attempts (and usually fails) to document his thoughts so that other observers can try to understand what THEY think the program does.
Randy Jensen demonstrated that the software development problem is communication among programmers; the lack of a single vision thereof. We have yet to demonstrate much agreement among ontologists about what ontology is, so why would we jump to the conclusion that we all experience the same reality?
It's very valuable for programmers and their users to have databases and FOL tools and symbolic representations such as equations to work with, when designing representations. But what in reality that representation corresponds to is often missing. It is "supposed to" correspond to the things that people experience, not to the reality they experience it of. And the said people are diverse, so their interpretations are diverse.
Aside: Exceptions are in embedded machine systems, such as car computers, where they are mapped to physical switches, sensors and displays in a much more traceable way. Even then, only the driver and passengers interpret the representations, each in unique ways, which may or may not be what the program designers expected.
So the world of representations is a very different one than the physical world. Yet it relates to the sciences (and humanities) in every field that has tried it so far.
So ontologies of representations are, IMHO, valid or exploratory ontologies are very useful for representations, regardless whether they are directly mapped to anything real. Instead, they are at the most detailed, mapped to messages that never exit the program.
I suggest that we go with "ontology is the observation, classification and distinction among objects from a representation."
Note that an observation is itself a representation.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CY1PR09MB08260C7D34B95D3F4479AD37DD610%40CY1PR09MB0826.namprd09.prod.outlook.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontology Summit content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA
4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontology-summit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
ontology-summ...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
ontolog...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontology-summit.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontology-summit/0c9401d19e62%24e6d24aa0%24b476dfe0%24%40com.
Hi Frank,
What about an asserted fact? Can you give me an example of a Relationship that is not representing a fact, actual or asserted?
Yes, an example of a mainstream system using ISO 15926 is Bentley
( https://www.bentley.com/en/products/brands/openplant
) .
Other companies working on it in different levels: AVEVA, Bechtel, Bentley Systems, Black & Veatch, Consolidated Contractors Company (CCC), CH2MHILL, The Dow Chemical Company, Emerson, Fluor, GlencoIS, Hatch, Intergraph, Noumenon, Siemens, and WorleyParsons.
Fiatech has the following projects going on:
Roadmap Element 9, Information Management |
||||
Development of consensus-based ISO 15926 template information patterns and creation of data layer software for key industry tools |
Development of consensus-based ISO 15926 template information patterns and creation of data layer software for key industry tools A |
|||
Exploring Piping Management through Project Information Flow (PIF) – Ray Topping |
Objective is to enable usage of existing ISO 15926 tools to achieve smooth piping data flow from design to construction and, ultimately, to owner/operator handover. Will also attempt to approximate the cost and schedule savings achieved with implementing the data exchange tools and best practices. |
This project will define the requirements of piping data from design to construction (with handover as the ultimate goal), including addressing piping specifications, geometry standards, material standards, and drafting rules and symbols. Project scope includes developing a neutral file format compatible with ISO 15926 for piping isometric data exchange. R |
||
Capturing Equipment Data Requirements Using ISO 15926 & Assessing Conformance (EDRC) – Ray Topping |
To establish a common understanding across industry projects of how to use ISO 15926 and how to assess software conformance to specified ISO 15926 data structures and capabilities. Collaboration with MIMOSA on the OGI Pilot is a cornerstone of this project. |
To establish a common foundation for representing, exchanging, and sharing equipment data using ISO 15926 and to demonstrate how to assess software implementations compliance. R |
||
ISO 15926 Information Models and Proteus Mappings (IIMM) – Ray Topping |
Information models for process and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs) and 3D models will be documented with ISO 15926 classes and templates. The information models will then be mapped to the Proteus Schema. |
Interoperability between Proteus Schema XML and Part 8
OWL XML deployments will enable transparent access to
intelligent design information. This will save major costs
and time delays incurred in the current manual,
non-interoperable data and handover exchange processes. A |
David Price may give you other examples.
Regards,
Hans
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/D342B05F.146C8B%25Frank.Guerino%40if4it.com.
Flat is related as a Characteristic of Earth
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/D342BEB4.146CD7%25Frank.Guerino%40if4it.com.
Hi Frank,
Whatever, for an engineer it is a fact. If it would not be
asserted to be true to him/her, it would not be in his/her
computer system.
In case you want details about the Bentley products please
contact Glen....@bentley.com
Regards,
Hans
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/D343ADEF.1470F5%25Frank.Guerino%40if4it.com.
Dear Hans,
The fact would be the assertion that a relationship is true.
Regards
Matthew
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/f560ee08-5840-3af5-4306-d7c1c90729f0%40quicknet.nl.
and the following "signature":
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/006601d19f2d%24bb284be0%243178e3a0%24%40gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/C309B4B8-18D9-46B5-9F9A-EADA6DF67696%40gmail.com.
Dear Douglas,
The fact is that it was asserted.
Regards
Matthew West
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/c6cd67ad85e40249ee5f7a4f906f50d2.squirrel%40emailmg.ipage.com.
"We
don't believe things because they are true, things are true
because we believe them."
Hans
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAGBy3d0x%2BKA4CGU%3DqywTrjV%2B_8dDMmJ2g-vkv2qsRVhB8-89gg%40mail.gmail.com.
Frank,
The persisting problem is that whatever I explain, you ignore
that.
I explained to you what our definition is of Relationship, and that we work with temporal parts, and that relationships are between temporal parts, and that the timestamps are given to those temporal parts.
Rather than claiming that I was wrong and you are right, please keep in mind that we work from two different assumption/definitions.
In the old days of ISO 15926, which was then called ISO 10303-221, we had Associations instead of Relationships, and no temporal parts, and yes, these Associations were timestamped, as you wrote below.
Since you still work with relations (our lingo) I wonder whether you really timestamp each of those when working in RDF. That would mean that ALL relations (rdf:Property) would have to be reified. :-((
Regards,
Hans
--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ontolo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontolog-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/D344DA21.147844%25Frank.Guerino%40if4it.com.
Christoper is of course correct that asserting something is true adds nothing to simply asserting except, as he points out, we have a metalanguage indirection. He says:if "φ is true" is a fact, so is φ. This implies that φ is an assertion.
But, we can even in that jumble that is English, say "That polly is a parrot is true". In this case, if φ = 'that polly is a parrot' then φ is NOT an assertion, it is a proposition, which might be true or false.
Object1 << relation1 << Relationship >> relation2 >> Object2
CENTRIFUGAL-PUMP << hasClassOfWhole << ClassOfAssemblyOfIndividual_439839 >> hasClassOfPart >> IMPELLER
myPump << hasWhole << AssemblyOfIndividual_238743 >> hasPart >> myImpeller
Resource "Main, Mary" is related as a "Subject Matter Expert” of Business Domain “Sales"
Dear Frank,
If you take a nodes and edges view of the world then in principal any edge can be replaced by a node and two more edges. The problem is where to stop? The thing to note is that you can say something about nodes (more edges to other nodes) but not about edges. In my analysis my conclusion was that there was no more information to record after you had identified the state playing the role in a relationship. So no point going beyond that. That is how ISO15926 works. You can always have convenient short cuts across that base layer. In SO 15926 these are templates.
Regards
Matthew West
Hi Matthew,In a previous post, you made a statement that got me thinking and I’m just now getting around to a response. You wrote: “If you take a nodes and edges view of the world then in principal any edge can be replaced by a node and two more edges. The problem is where to stop?”I do not know that I’ve seen the same thing. An edge, such as a Predicate, can be treated as a specific type of Node but our research has shown us that it has a limited set of what it can point to, which is all Semantic Relationships that also use that Edge. For example, if we have a Semantic Relationship with an Edge = “Subject Matter Expert”, such as:Resource "Main, Mary" is related as a "Subject Matter Expert” of Business Domain “Sales"
Our work has shown us that the predicate “Subject Matter Expert” can point only to ...
the set of all other similar predicates that exist within all other Semantic Relationships that use it (see link). The implication is that this set is always a subset of the greater Network/Graph.Does this logic make sense or am I missing something?My Best,Frank--
Frank Guerino, Chairman
The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
http://www.if4it.com
1.908.294.5191 (M)From: Matthew West <dr.matt...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Ontolog Forum <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 4:50 PM
To: Ontolog Forum <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Are Relationship Triples also Nodes?Dear Frank,
If you take a nodes and edges view of the world then in principal any edge can be replaced by a node and two more edges. The problem is where to stop? The thing to note is that you can say something about nodes (more edges to other nodes) but not about edges. In my analysis my conclusion was that there was no more information to record after you had identified the state playing the role in a relationship. So no point going beyond that. That is how ISO15926 works. You can always have convenient short cuts across that base layer. In SO 15926 these are templates.
Regards
Matthew West
--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ontolo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontolog-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/D345487F.147C53%25Frank.Guerino%40if4it.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Hi Chris,
That is true (to you), because you believe it :-))
Hans
--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ontolo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontolog-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/7DCD30D6-F63D-4102-BA20-C2C4DD375A61%40gmail.com.
0q
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/D343ADEF.1470F5%25Frank.Guerino%40if4it.com.
0q
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/D343ADEF.1470F5%25Frank.Guerino%40if4it.com.
Hi Pat,I wrote: “Our work has shown us that the predicate “Subject Matter Expert” can point only to"You Responded: “Well now, "can point only to" is a very strong claim.”Please know that my response was not to imply that our research covered all definitive permutations. It was meant as a statement that "so far" we have not seen anything else that an Edge can point to. “So far," we’ve seen that an Edge can point to its sphere of Equivalents (e.g. Synonyms and Preferred Terms) and !Equivalents (e.g. Antonyms).
You wrote: “In an RDF graph, node names and edge names (IRIs) are treated identically so a single IRI may be both a node and an edge, and both roles are independent of what it "points to", if that terminology is interpreted to mean what an HTTP request will yield from the Web. In fact, the semantics of the IRI in its role in RDF is completely separated from its role in Web data access, so it can point to (literally) anything. “This is interesting and I’m trying to understand it, better. I certainly agree that Edges are a form of a Node
, as are Types and Instances of Types. However, I have yet to see them (Edges) point to anything other than Equivalents or !Equivalents, in a Graph.
In my earlier post, I gave an example using the Edge = “Subject Matter Expert”, which pointed to all other Edges = “Subject Matter Expert". Could I please ask you to provide me with one or more examples of other things Edge can point to? In other words, if we stick with the same example:…what else do you believe the Edge = “Subject Matter Expert” can point to?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/D345AE7A.148119%25Frank.Guerino%40if4it.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Hi Pat,
Let me start by answering your last statement, first, as I believe it will help add context.You wrote: “However, perhaps you mean "point to" in the sense in which edges are seen as directed lines or "arrows" pointing from one node to another. But if so, then there is no room for any doubt about what an edge points to: it points to the node at the sharp end of its arrowhead, so I had assumed you did not mean this.”Yes, in a sense this is what I mean.
A Node can point to many similar Nodes (homogeneous) or different Nodes (heterogeneous).
In the example:
- Person Doe, Jane is related as a Subject Matter Expert to Business Domain Marketing
The edge “Subject Matter Expert” is a type of Node, itself, that can point to other Edges. For example, it can point:
- To other Edges of the same descriptive Predicate = “Subject Matter Expert”
- To its defined Equivalents, such as “SME” or “Expert”
- To its defined anti-Equivalents (!Equivalents), such as “Amateur” (NOTE: “opposites” are common examples of !Equivalents)
This allows, for example, to traverse from “Subject Matter Expert” to “Expert” to all Node Instances that explicitly relate to “Expert", in addition to those that explicitly relate to "Subject Matter Expert”.You wrote: “When you say "... can point to...", you seem to be making a claim about possibility: if X can not point to Y, then X's pointing to Y is *impossible*. That is an absolute claim, nothing about "so far" in it. Perhaps you use the English word "can" in a different way, however.”In a sense, yes. “Can only point to” represents a bounded set. When someone makes the statement “Those cherries” it infers specific cherries (a subset) in the set of all cherries, which are a subset of all fruits). “Those cherries” points to a specific bounded set of cherries and not to anything else.
It is the same with the “Subject Matter Expert” example.
When using such a Predicate, it appears we can only find and access a specific bounded set of things that are 1 Degree of Separation away from it, in the Graph (i.e. things it points to).
It cannot directly point to things that are 2+ Degrees of Separation, away, and therefore we cannot access such “payloads” without first traversing through its 1st Degree related Nodes.Structurally, a Graph allows us the flexibility to bind anything to anything. However, the brain and nature don’t appear to work that way.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/D3478ADE.149799%25Frank.Guerino%40if4it.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
One type of "Semantic Relationship” is a bridge between Type Instance Nodes, via an Edge Node. For example:E.g Person Doe, Jane is a Subject Matter Expert to Topic XYZAnother type of a "Semantic Relationship” is a bridge between two Edge Nodes, via another Edge Node. For example:E.g. A Subject Matter Expert is related to a SME Definition Node which helps support and define the relationships between one SME and all other Subject Matter Experts.
--All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.---You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.To post to this group, send email to ontolo...@googlegroups.com.Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontolog-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/67d9e361-bdc4-b59c-8f4a-8bf2a40829ac%40bestweb.net.
When the conversation gets to discussing a god node it may have gone an abstraction too far.
Gary
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/D347CA7C.149C1F%25Frank.Guerino%40if4it.com.
Taking rdfs as an example:
ICEXT(I(rdfs:Resource)) = IR
Simon
--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ontolo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontolog-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/D347DCC0.149DCC%25Frank.Guerino%40if4it.com.
Hi Pat,
Unfortunately, the word “Node” gets overused and lost in the translation, sometimes.
Let me clarify a little more by identifying types of Nodes.
Some examples include:
- A “Type or Classification Node”. A Type Node points to one or more Type Instance Nodes. E.g. “Fruits” is a type (as opposed to "Vegetables”)and will point to all Fruits in the graph.
- A “Type Instance Node”. This is a specific Instance of a Type Node. A very specific Apple is an example.
- An "Edge (or Arc) Node”. Examples is a “Subject Matter Expert” which can exist as an Edge/Arc between a Person Type Instance Node and a Topic Type Instance Node.
One type of "Semantic Relationship” is a bridge between Type Instance Nodes, via an Edge Node. For example:E.g Person Doe, Jane is a Subject Matter Expert to Topic XYZ
Another type of a "Semantic Relationship” is a bridge between two Edge Nodes, via another Edge Node. For example:E.g. A Subject Matter Expert is related to a SME Definition Node which helps support and define the relationships between one SME and all other Subject Matter Experts.You wrote: “If your nodes and edges are part of a graph, and if "point to" is understood in the above sense, then an edge can only point to a single node."I don’t’ know if I agree with this statement.
In the above two examples of Semantic Relationships, we can get to
- Former Example: the two Type Instances Nodes in that specific Subject Matter Expert instance
- In The Latter Example: all other Subject Matter Experts with the help of a Definition Node (a whole other topic of conversation because: Do we get to other SMEs through or with parallel use of the Definition Node?).
However, going back to my earlier statement… I believe that the Edge Node “Subject Matter Expert” can point to
multiple things but definitely has a bounded/limited set of things it can point to.
You wrote: "Do you mean that "subject matter expert" is understood to be an indexical?”I have never used “indexical” but it appears that the answer to this question is “yes.” I gather that “Type Nodes” (see definition above) would also be examples of Indexical Nodes. (Thanks for teaching me this term!)
Thinking about “Indexical" a bit further… I would suggest that all Nodes are Indexical as all Nodes point to one or more things and an Index is, in short, defined to be something that provides quick and organized access to a limited set of things that are all part of a broader set of things. In fact, while in theory a single node can exist with no bindings, I don’t believe there is an example (in reality) that doesn’t relate to at least one other node (after we observe/analyze it).You wrote: “Relations can relate all kinds of things, and can themselves be related to other things in all kinds of ways. “I agree but I would qualify that separating the data structure from reality sheds some light. A Data Structure that is a Graph can relate anything to anything. However, in reality and to my knowledge, we have no evidence to prove that everything is related to everything else.
Instead, it appears that specific things are related to other specific things.I wrote: “Structurally, a Graph allows us the flexibility to bind anything to anything. However, the brain and nature don’t appear to work that way.” And you responded: “Really? It seems to me that nature has no bearing on this, and that our brains are quite capable of dealing with arbitrary graph structures. Mine is, at any rate :-)”My point is that when we learn something (in nature) we only bind what we’ve learned together with other things we’ve learned (all in the past). The possibility of relating everything to everything else certainly exists (the empty Graph data structure) but do we really relate anything, arbitrarily, to any and all other things before we learn/derive them?
--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ontolo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontolog-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/D347A582.14999F%25Frank.Guerino%40if4it.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Hello All,I’d like the community's opinions on the following:Given a Graph/Network that is composed of Nodes, Edges (a.k.a. Links) and Relationships….Defining a Node as an entity that has descriptive traits and state.Defining an Edge as the descriptive connection between any two Nodes (e.g. a Predicate)…Defining a Relationship as consisting of a Subject Node that is linked through an Edge to an Object Node (a.k.a. a Triple)…Do you believe that a Relationship Triple can also be treated as a Node and why?If we decompose the Relationship as a set of 3 components, each component can point to one or more things. For example, if we have a Relationship…{“Subject Node”: “Tom Smith”,“Predicate”: “Product Owner”,“Object Node”: “Product ABC”}1. The Subject Node points to all data about "Tom Smith”.2. The Object Node points to all relevant data about "Product ABC”.3. The Predicate points to all Relationships that contain the Predicate “Product Owner”.(NOTE: Each of the above elements (Nodes & Predicates) can also point to other things like Voids or Holes, even though the above example does not show it.)(NOTE: We’ve already proven all of these pointer types in our research so we know they do, in fact, exist and work as described above.)While the Relationship can exist as an independent entity, on its own, if it is treated as a Node what else do you think that set would/could point to? In other words, what can that independent Triple, as a whole and singular entity, also point to?Thanks, in advance, for any thoughts you offer.
My Best,Frank--
Frank Guerino, Chairman
The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
http://www.if4it.com
1.908.294.5191 (M)
--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ontolo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontolog-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/D33E74BD.145BF9%25Frank.Guerino%40if4it.com.
At the risk of entering into this discussion a week late:
What Hans says here is very confused. It is the assertion that the earth is flat that is temporal in nature. That assertion was commonly, but by no means universally, held for many centuries, but no temporal part of the Earth was ever flat. I frankly do not believe (!) that ISO 15926 provides the mechanism for dealing with belief, nor that it was ever intended to.
OTOH, Hans is quite right (in spirit) when he says:
"We don't believe things because they are true, things are true because we believe them."
I would substitute “perceive” for “believe”. Ultimately what modelers, analysts, design engineers, and plant managers state as “facts” are their perceptions of reality, based on whatever science, measurement, mathematics, and other knowledge systems they use. Knowledge engineering is not about absolute truth, but rather about the capture of available “knowledge”, all of which is based on human cognition. The purpose of recording these “facts” is to enable inferences and to guide action. And it all comes down to “doing the best we can with what we know”.
As Chris and Pat pointed out, when we expressly want to talk about situations that we don’t necessarily take to be “fact” in this usual sense, we are off into another logical world. But reifying relationships per se is just a possible formal representation of a “fact” as a “state of affairs” object that is taken to exist, which is the Tarski interpretation of the corresponding relationship proposition being True.
And OBTW, in that view, a “reference to a proposition” may be construed as a reference to a category (subclass) of “state of affairs” that may or may not be empty, and may in some cases have multiple instances.
-Ed
From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ontolo...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of HansTeijgeler
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 1:53 PM
To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Are Relationship Triples also Nodes?
Hi Frank,
My Best,
Frank
--
Frank Guerino, Chairman
The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
http://www.if4it.com
1.908.294.5191 (M)
From: HansTeijgeler <hans.te...@quicknet.nl>
Reply-To: Ontolog Forum <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 3:50 PM
To: Ontolog Forum <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Are Relationship Triples also Nodes?
Hi Frank,
--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ontolo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontolog-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/D341BF0D.1469C5%25Frank.Guerino%40if4it.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open content license, open publication license, open source or free software license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0
License or its successors.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
ontolo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ontolog-forum.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/27a57eb7-904d-b690-d9de-9ca1a24adcfd%40quicknet.nl.
At the risk of entering into this discussion a week late:What Hans says here is very confused. It is the assertion that the earth is flat that is temporal in nature. That assertion was commonly, but by no means universally, held for many centuries, but no temporal part of the Earth was ever flat. I frankly do not believe (!) that ISO 15926 provides the mechanism for dealing with belief, nor that it was ever intended to.OTOH, Hans is quite right (in spirit) when he says:"We don't believe things because they are true, things are true because we believe them."
I would substitute “perceive” for “believe”. Ultimately what modelers, analysts, design engineers, and plant managers state as “facts” are their perceptions of reality, based on whatever science, measurement, mathematics, and other knowledge systems they use. Knowledge engineering is not about absolute truth, but rather about the capture of available “knowledge”, all of which is based on human cognition. The purpose of recording these “facts” is to enable inferences and to guide action. And it all comes down to “doing the best we can with what we know”.
The main problem as I see it is that we only see ontology by way of epistemology. I.e., things exist however they exist, but we only see them by perception and then belief based on perception, cogitation, etc. However, the things don’t change. Our descriptions of them do.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/SN1PR11MB1021B3FCB5E829F966DC767BBC780%40SN1PR11MB1021.namprd11.prod.outlook.com.
> http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/fuzzy.pdf
Fascinating article, reminds me of why I spent 30 years under the spell of "Conceptual Structures"
Of course, I am always tested by a commitment to top-down ("drill-down") intentional linearity, by which I affirm the claim that language is no more fuzzy than the accuracy of our measuring instrument and the persistence of our commitment to be accurate. Stipulative definition turns the empirical bottom-up approach to everything on its head. Just gazing around yourself with no method -- how could your thinking be other than fuzzy?
> Unfortunately, the world tends to be mushy or fuzzy.
Well -- is it the world that is fuzzy.... I think the exact quote is -- "the world is a continuum of shadings"
Concepts are inventions of the human mind used to construct a model of the world. They package reality into discrete units for further processing, they support powerful mechanisms for doing logic, and they are indispensable for precise, extended chains of reasoning. But concepts and percepts cannot form a perfect model of the world, -- they are abstractions that select features that are important for one purpose, but they ignore details and complexities that may be just as important for some other purpose. Leech (1974) noted that "bony structured" concepts form an imperfect match to a fuzzy world. People make black and white distinctions when the world consists of a continuum of shadings. Conceptual Structures, p.344
Yes – but those shadings are cognitive acts, and lines drawn to serve human intention. We need a mathematical semantics of the bones – that’s the algebraic mystery.
And that skeletal theory of semantics is clearly driven by human motivation – we draw the lines in particular places “for some reason” – some reason that serves our intention…
In this sense, the world is a continuum (with NO distinctions), and the “shadings” are cognitive constructions created within the perceiving mind, to serve some immediate convenience.
Chapter 2 of CS, “Psychological Evidence”, begins with a discussion of “percepts”. This book taught me the basics of semantics. I could never read one word of Chomsky, and never had the slightest clue why anybody thought it was interesting….
p.29 says “An important question is whether perception is a bottom-up process that first matches smaller units and combines them into larger ones [“chunking”] – or whether it is a top-down process that first matches large units and then fills in smaller details.
“Some evidence favors a top-down approach and other evidence favors a bottom-up approach. Pritchard et al found evidence both for the stability of the whole, as Gestalt theory maintains, and for the existence of parts for building the whole. They concluded that both approaches “are valid and complement one another.” This psychological conclusion has also emerged as a basic principle of A.I.: top-down reasoning is a goal-directed process that imposes a tightly-controlled organization [human intentional stipulation!]; bottom-up reasoning is a data-directed [and context-free, yikes] or stimulus-directed process that leads to more diffuse chains of associations.”
Want to know why global civilization is a mess? It’s them freaking “diffuse chains of association arising spontaneously absolutely anywhere” in crazed and annoyed competition. The Bible guys called it Babel. It might be the exact opposite of Logos…
“The two approaches may be combined in bidirectional reasoning, which is originally triggered by some stimulus in the data, but which then invokes a high-level goal that controls the rest of the process. Some problems are more naturally handled by one approach or the other, but the combination of the two is especially powerful.” CS, p30
You hit it out of the park with that one. The entire bony-structured framework is organized on that primary dimension of direction. Why is that SO hard for the bears to see….
(too much industrial commitment to bottom-up, eh?)
But as I read the “What is the Source of Fuzziness?” PDF – I see what looks like a strong and persuasive clue. Part 3, Relating Patterns to Patterns says
In science, collections of patterns form theories. In other fields, they are called models, blueprints, project plans, or syndromes. Whatever they’re called, collections of patterns are expressed in notations for which precision is important. Yet scientists are always aware of the experimental error, which they try to limit by carefully controlled experiments. Engineers express their frustration in a pithy slogan: All models are wrong, but some are useful. To bridge the gap between theories and the world, Figure 3 shows a model as a Janus-like structure, with an engineering side facing the world and an abstract side facing a theory.
That is how it works. See the world that way, and the huge semantic mudslide of global evolution gets washed away. That’s the jewel in the lotus.
Now – just get the dimensional structure of the bones worked out – and everything devolves to measurement. Stipulate it (because, like we’ve said 500 times, the parsing is ad hoc) through Q&A dialogue right on down to “acceptable error tolerance” and you’ve worked out your agreement…
A Janus-like structure – what the hippies call “holons” – is a “a part that is also a whole” – facing in two (“bi-directional”) directions – up the part/whole hierarchy to abstract theory, or down, to the concrete world.
We gotta stop arguing this tension (“which side is right”), and get an “all of the above” model figured out.
Bruce Schuman
http://origin.org/one/spectrum.cfm
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ontolo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2016 7:16 PM
To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Are Relationship Triples also Nodes?
Chris, Ed, and Leo,
This thread is mixing philosophical and practical issues.
CM
> Please oh please let us not pervert and bastardize the word "true"
> by giving any credence whatever to the silly aphorism [quoted by Ed].
> ...
> I for one, would prefer to be a hard liner about those words as well
> and insist that a fact is simply a true proposition and that one can
> only know things that are true...
I agree. Unfortunately, the world tends to be mushy or fuzzy.
CM
> it is acknowledged that "fact" really only means something like
> "warranted belief" and that one's "knowledge" is simply a collection
> of such beliefs.
Yes. I made some related points in an article on "What is the source of fuzziness" for Lotfi Z's Festschrift:
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/fuzzy.pdf
Note Figure 3 (page 5) about relating the world to a theory by means of a Tarski-style model. Every axiom of the theory may have denotation True in terms of the model. But it is extremely rare for any model to be an exact approximation to any part of the physical world (or universe).
Leo
> The main problem as I see it is that we only see ontology by way of
> epistemology...
(1) the node A points to B(2) the edge labelled with R points to B(3) R points to B(4) the entire triple A R B points to B
(5) the name R can be used to access some information from elsewhere (ie not in this triple at all) which it "points to”. “
(1): a node A can never directly point to B without first going through a labeled Edge. In other words, it can only point through a descriptive Predicate that provides context/meaning.(2) and (3): See my description what a descriptive Predicate can point to, above.