Re: SUO: Vote 2001-02: IFF Foundation Ontology
Corrections, additions and comments (see below).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert E. Kent" <rekent@ontologos.org>
To: "Adam Pease" <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>
Cc: "SUO" <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: SUO: Vote 2001-02: IFF Foundation Ontology
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> There are six *entity instances* (objects, individuals or particulars)
Correction:
There are eight *entity instances* (objects, individuals or particulars)
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> signature_L(R) : arity_L(R) -> index_L
Correction:
signature_L(R) : arity_L(R) -> entity-type_L
for all R in relation-type_L
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Also, perhaps I should add the two assertions
(= (lang$valence example-language) example-valence)
(= (lang$arity example-language) example-arity)
to the initial syntactic declarations, and the following valence and arity
declarations before the signature declarations. The valence of a language
maps a relation type to a natural number, the cardinality of its arity. And,
as mentioned before, the arity function of a language maps a relation type
to a subset of indices.
__________
Here are the valences for the relation type signatures:
(= (example-valence performed-by) 2)
(= (example-valence has-name) 2)
(= (example-valence object-destroyed) 2)
(= (example-valence contains-substance) 2)
(= (example-valence participant) 2)
(= (example-valence before) 2)
__________
Here are the arities for the relation type signatures:
((example-arity performed-by) e)
((example-arity performed-by) a)
((example-arity has-name) o)
((example-arity has-name) n)
((example-arity object-destroyed) e)
((example-arity object-destroyed) o)
((example-arity contains-substance) o1)
((example-arity contains-substance) o2)
((example-arity participant) e)
((example-arity participant) a)
((example-arity before) e1)
((example-arity before) e2)
__________
Here are the actual declarations for the relation type signatures:
(= ((example-signature performed-by) e) event)
(= ((example-signature performed-by) a) agent)
(= ((example-signature has-name) o) object)
(= ((example-signature has-name) n) name)
(= ((example-signature object-destroyed) e) event)
(= ((example-signature object-destroyed) o) object)
(= ((example-signature contains-substance) o1) object)
(= ((example-signature contains-substance) o2) object)
(= ((example-signature participant) e) event)
(= ((example-signature participant) a) agent)
(= ((example-signature before) e1) event)
(= ((example-signature before) e2) event)
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> As I mentioned above, we could also give examples of declaring and
> manipulating instances, both entity and relation, in the IFF Model Theory
> Ontology -- thus building a model, not just a language. Also, we could
give
> examples of 1st-order interpretations.
As further explanation, perhaps I should mention that this IFF model, which
consists of two classifications (one for entities and one for relations) and
two hypergraphs (one for instances and one for types), corresponds closely
to the traditional description of a model on the "Components of Logic" slide
#7 of my SUO Workshop presentation
[http://reliant.teknowledge.com/IJCAI01/Kent.ppt] or the attachment
[http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/suo/email/pdf00003.pdf]. Just transform the
interpretation (evaluation) maps to classifications, one for entities and
one for relations.
Robert E. Kent
rekent@ontologos.org