[Crm-sig] superproperty vs subproperty ISSUE?

Christian-Emil Ore c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no
Tue Apr 26 23:26:58 EEST 2011


Yes, exactly what I meant. One will need a specific property for each 
subclass. However, in the formalism CRM is expressed in, the property 
is_member_of_some_group can have instances from woman to men (coll).

We should perhaps continue our bilateral discussion bilaterally.

Just a final comment about wordnet's relation. Wordnet has a fixed 
number of (relations: mero_has_part, mero_is_part_of, mero_has_member, 
mero_is_member_of etc where the domain and range may be any synsets of 
nouns and adjectives. If one wish to use the your suggested solution, 
one carefully has to introduce many more typed properties (range and 
domain) when needed.

But again - wordnet is not an ontology.

Kind regards,
Christian-Emil

On 26.04.2011 21:34, Synapse Computing Oy wrote:
> 
> I made a graph suggesting a/the solution as well as some meta.
>  
> https://docs.google.com/present/edit?id=0AaO-5HMK7r0-ZDI1cXRyYl8waGJmdDNmZGM&hl=en&authkey=CIe28_wD 
> <https://docs.google.com/present/edit?id=0AaO-5HMK7r0-ZDI1cXRyYl8waGJmdDNmZGM&hl=en&authkey=CIe28_wD>
> 
> Best regards!
> Mika
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Synapse Computing Oy, Arabiankatu 2, 00560 Helsinki
> info at synapse-computing.com
> puh/tel/phone +358-41-5499004
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
>     *From:* Christian-Emil Ore [mailto:c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no]
>     *To:* crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig at ics.forth.gr]
>     *Sent:* Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:11:17 +0300
>     *Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] superproperty vs subproperty ISSUE?
> 
>     On 26.04.2011 14:12, Synapse Computing Oy wrote:
>      >
>     Yes and no. Assume you manage to produce an well defined classes that
>     cannot be further sub divided. You will still have the same problem as
>     long as one has a super property between superclasses.
> 
>     A more basal problem is that natural language (as used people)
>     cannot be
>     formalized into a single formal ontology.
> 
>     C-E
> 
> 
>      > The problem is of course trivial in the sense that there is a hidden
>      > distinction, the property of sex, which subdivides persons into
>     men and
>      > women and groups into males and females.
>      >
>      > The way to acheive filtering is thus to make the implicit
>     distinction
>      > explicit by introducing a new distinctive feature into the class
>      > definition (intension) of person resulting in a further
>     subdivision of
>      > (the extension of) person into male and female.
>      >
>      > A situation like this might arise when distinctions are made
>     based on a
>      > intuitive understanding of language instead of a formal
>     specification of
>      > the intension of concepts/classes. In formal systems these kind of
>      > ambiguities pop up. One interesting tool to detect these kind of
>     traps
>      > is Alloy http://alloy.mit.edu.
>      >
>      > Thus, the flaw is not with the inheritance mechanism but with a too
>      > slack definition of classes.
>      >
>      >
>      > Best regards,
>      > Mika
>      >
>      >
>     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>      > Synapse Computing Oy, Arabiankatu 2, 00560 Helsinki
>      > info at synapse-computing.com <mailto:info at synapse-computing.com>
>      > puh/tel/phone +358-41-5499004
>      >
>     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>      >
>      > *From:* Christian-Emil Ore [mailto:c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no
>     <mailto:c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no>]
>      > *To:* crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>     <mailto:crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>]
>      > *Sent:* Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:37:06 +0300
>      > *Subject:* [Crm-sig] superproperty vs subproperty ISSUE?
>      >
>      > Dear all,
>      > As a preparation of a lecture I gave some weeks ago, I closely
>     studied
>      > the Danish WordNet and found some peculiarities due to to freely
>      > inheritance of properties
>      > Glossary:
>      > mand = man
>      > mandfolk = men (collective)
>      > person = person
>      > gruppe = group
>      > inngår i = is_a_member_of
>      >
>      > mand ISA person
>      > mandfolk ISA group
>      > person inngår i gruppe
>      > etc.
>      >
>      > In English:
>      > man ISA person
>      > men ISA group
>      > person is_a_member_of group
>      >
>      > With unrestricted inheritance of properties of a superclass we get
>      > man is_a_member_of men (OK)
>      > person is_a_member_of men (not OK)
>      >
>      > The latter implies that any person can be a member of men, even my
>      > little daughter. This is clearly ontological nonsense.
>      >
>      > I discussed this with the editor of the Danish Wordnet, Bolette
>      > Pedersen, and the inheritance system had been discussed in their
>     group,
>      > but apparently no solution had been found.
>      >
>      > In a logical/mathamatical setting it is evident that if
>      > f: A -> B and
>      > B' a subset of B, then one cannot in general assume that
>      > f: A -> B' is well defined for all a in A.
>      >
>      > *************
>      > CRM:
>      >
>      > In CRM there are no restrictions on inheritance of properties. So the
>      > subclass hierarchy has to be/been designed with care so that the
>     model
>      > is not turned into expressed nonsense.
>      >
>      > My questions are: Is this restriction a problem? Should a
>     mechanism for
>      > filtering/restricting property inheritance be introduced? (The
>     current
>      > subproperty is not imposing any restriction see the quite from the
>      > introduction below).
>      >
>      > regards,
>      > Christian-Emil
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > A subproperty is a property that is a specialization of another
>      > property
>      > (its superproperty). Specialization or IsA relationship means that:
>      > 1. all instances of the subproperty are also instances of its
>      > superproperty,
>      > 2. the intension of the subproperty extends the intension of the
>      > superproperty, i.e. its traits are more restrictive than that of its
>      > superproperty,
>      > 3. the domain of the subproperty is the same as the domain of its
>      > superproperty or a subclass of that domain,
>      > 4. the range of the subproperty is the same as the range of its
>      > superproperty or a subclass of that range,
>      > 5. the subproperty inherits the definition of all of the properties
>      > declared for its superproperty without exceptions (strict
>     inheritance),
>      > in addition to having none, one or more properties of its own.
>      >
>      > A subproperty can have more than one immediate superproperty and
>      > consequently inherits the properties of all of its superproperties
>      > (multiple inheritance). The IsA relationship or specialization
>     between
>      > two or more properties gives rise to the structure we call a property
>      > hierarchy. The IsA relationship is transitive and may not be cyclic.
>      > Some object-oriented languages, such as C++, have no equivalent
>     to the
>      > specialization of properties.
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > Crm-sig mailing list
>      > Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>     <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>>
>      > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>      >
>      >
>      >
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Crm-sig mailing list
>     Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>     http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> 
>  
>  



More information about the Crm-sig mailing list