Re: SUO: Re: W3C approves RDF and OWL as recommendations
Philippe,
I think your approach adds confusion rather than ease or clarity, and
since the relations are not reified, it also prevents users from adding the
axioms that would define the full semantics of those new relations. But,
maybe we'll have to agree to disagree. At least, I have a better
understanding now of what you want to achieve, and what you believe the
benefits are.
>I did not make the difference between (instance Bob Father) and (Father Bob).
>Should I have? I used (holds ?roleType ?m) instead of (?roleType ?m) whenever
>I could because this is the syntactic form used in the SUMO. However, in the
>definition of functionalConceptSignature I had to use (?rel ?a ?m) because
>in that definition ?rel refers to a function.
In SUMO (instance Bob Father) is the syntactic form used for class
membership statements. (Father Bob) won't work with the rest of the axioms
in SUMO.
Adam
At 03:15 PM 2/19/2004 +1000, Philippe Martin wrote:
>Adam,
>
> > These definitions by themselves do not actually assert 'parent' into
> > a knowledge base, they just make such a relation implied by the
> > existence of the 'Parent' class.
>
>This is what I intended. In my previous answer I wrote that assertions
>may actually be made by some inference engines, and I still think this
>is a possibility but I don't mind if it happens ... in another system
>than mine (as explained below).
>Thus, if you think my KIF statements are correct, this is good enough for
>me, but if someone adapts findOrGenerateRelationFor so that it actually
>asserts the relation, e.g. using the LISP function gensym, this is ok too.
>
>
> > One still has to state 'findOrGenerateRelationFor' instead of the 'domain'
> > statements we'd have in SUMO. Why not also assert (instance parent
> > BinaryRelation) directly, without this additional axiom set?
>
>In the MSO, there are currently 583 concept types (most of which from
>WordNet) that are subtype of pm#thing_that_can_be_seen_as_a_relation
>and hence are role types. This number will grow.
>Not using relationalConceptSignature and functionalConceptSignature (and
>their two associated relations) would mean adding 583 relation types (and
>as many subrelation links) plus 2*583 definitions for their connections
>to the role types. Thus, the users and the inference engines will have to
>deal with 3*583 additional assertions. And each addition/modification in
>the role types will have to be duplicated in the relation type hierarchy.
>Thus, using findOrGenerateRelationFor helps scalability (and especially
>when the semantics of relationalConceptSignature and
>functionalConceptSignature are hard-coded in the inference engines).
>The most important point is that I do not want users to have to bother
>with seeing or adding relations and definitions (and most of them would
>not add them or add them incorrectly, thus reducing knowledge sharing and
>retrieval possibilities). I want the relation type hierarchy to stay as
>small as possible, mainly including basic relations (as few content-related
>relations as possible), and untouched by "average users". Average users
>should only have to update the concept type hierarchy (and not enter
>definitions) when what the categories they want do not yet exist. Finally,
>controls on updates of the concept type hierarchy are stronger because it
>countains more information (hence more constraints) than the relation type
>hierarchy.
>
>Thus, to keep the relation type hierarchy as small as possible, I prefer
>that findOrGenerateRelationFor does not actually generate the relation types.
>
>
>
> > What does (holds ?roleType ?m) mean, for example if bound to (holds Father
> > Bob) ? Does this mean (instance Bob Father) [as with SUMO] or (Father
> Bob)
> > [as in some other systems]? If so, why include the 'holds' predicate?
>
>I did not make the difference between (instance Bob Father) and (Father Bob).
>Should I have? I used (holds ?roleType ?m) instead of (?roleType ?m) whenever
>I could because this is the syntactic form used in the SUMO. However, in the
>definition of functionalConceptSignature I had to use (?rel ?a ?m) because
>in that definition ?rel refers to a function.
>
>
>Philippe