[Person-ontology] Person-ontology Digest, Vol 1, Issue 11
Josiane Caron-Pargue
jcaron at univ-poitiers.fr
Thu Oct 11 05:41:18 PDT 2007
Sure that we have to take into consideration the nature of what (thing or
person) is blonde ....but in both cases (Adam as well as for beer or an
other thing or person):
the enumeration of every condition in which Adam's hair is blonde cannot
end: I can find that Adam's hair is blonde because the sea make it blonde,
or because I see that it is white and that he aged and I do not want to
hurt him .... Furthermore it can be more or less blonde (quantitative
aspects)......not exactly what I call "blonde" (qualitative aspects issued
from a comparison to atype) ........it could be a joke...
it would be better to distinguish the notions from their transformations
when the language is used, and to identify the nature of these
transformations : a quantification from the positive (it is blonde) toward
the negative (it is not) aspects; the source of this transformation: the
sea (or an other thing) or the person who is speaking, or Adam (perhaps his
hair has been dyed) ....; the purpose of the declaration ......(report,
recovering of this information, advertizing, .....). And then to identify
how categorizations could be reorganized in a user's situation.
Furthermore we are talking about Adam, or about his hair, or about the
color of his hair ? the semantics is not the same !
sure also that the time finite or not has to be precised
but also the position of the observer ( seeing events, but not time; or
seing time but not events; seing both events and time )
What I want to mean is that there are invariants in these transformations.
It could be useful to try to grasp them.
Josiane
Le 09:55 10/10/2007, vous avez écrit:
>Send Person-ontology mailing list submissions to
> person-ontology at idcommons.net
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/person-ontology
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> person-ontology-request at idcommons.net
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> person-ontology-owner at idcommons.net
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of Person-ontology digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: first contributions - is the Higgins top-level useful?
> (Paul Trevithick)
> 2. Re: first contributions - is the Higgins top-level useful?
> (David Whitten)
> 3. Re: first contributions - is the Higgins top-level useful?
> (Paul Trevithick)
> 4. Re: first contributions - is the Higgins top-level useful?
> (David Whitten)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:21:27 -0400
>From: "Paul Trevithick" <paul at socialphysics.org>
>Subject: Re: [Person-ontology] first contributions - is the Higgins
> top-level useful?
>To: <phmartin at phmartin.info>
>Cc: person-ontology at idcommons.net
>Message-ID: <000001c80ab1$f9673980$d514a8c0 at t43>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>Philippe wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Before we get going I would suggest that we start from a level playing
> > > field so as to keep the group focused and initially in sync.
> > > I would suggest that we take a look at http://www.eclipse.org/higgins/
> >
> > I waited, as you suggested.
> > I assume that the members of this list have now looked at the above site.
> >
> >
> > > So which of the Higgins/Protege top-level model object do you think
> > > are not really needed?
> >
> > From which viewpoint? Indeed, I have no doubt that there are
> > good reasons for the current Higgins and Protege top-level models
> > to be as they currently are. However, I currently do not see the
> > need of any element of the Higgins top-level model (the one at
> > http://www.eclipse.org/higgins/ontologies/2006/higgins.owl or
> > http://www.webkb.org/kb/nit/physEntity/animate/higgins_top_level.html)
> > for representing information about a person in a way that eases
> > knowledge sharing/re-use, even at a low level (e.g., via RDF+OWL).
> >
> > For instance, I currently do not understand why 35 XSD classes
> > have been "duplicated" into 35 higgins classes and 35 higgins
> > properties; one example, higgins#float, which has for signature
> > (in the FL notation): higgins#float (higgins#Float, xsd#float).
> > Why not directly using the 35 XSD classes?
>
>The duplication driven by the need in identity management systems to be able
>to not only make statements, but also to be able to make statements about
>these statements. In Higgins call the former "Attributes" and the latter
>"Metadata" in Higgins. For example we want to make this Attribute statement
>about Digital Subject Adam: "Adam hasHairColor blonde", but we also want to
>say that this value "blonde" was provided by the Dept. of Motor Vehicles and
>has an expiration data of Jan 1, 2010.
>
>If we just use a triple "Adam hasHairColor blonde" where blonde is a
>literal, we've no ability to make statements about the value "blonde". So
>what we do in Higgins is use two triples shown loosely here:
>
> Adam hasHairColor value1
> value1 value "blonde"
> value1 expires "Jan 1, 2010"
> value1 source "Dept of Motor Vehicles"
>
>Where "value1" is a subclass of Value (probably StringValue, to be precise).
>
>
>Finally, the reason for all of those XML Schema-inspired Value sub-classes
>is to be able to express that the "hasHairColor" property has a range of
>"StringSimpleValue" --that is to be precise about the type of the value
>instead of only being able to say that "hasHairColor" has a range of
>"Value".
>
><snip>
>
>
>-Paul
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 19:27:14 -0500
>From: "David Whitten" <david.j.whitten at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Person-ontology] first contributions - is the Higgins
> top-level useful?
>To: "Paul Trevithick" <paul at socialphysics.org>
>Cc: person-ontology at idcommons.net
>Message-ID:
> <aa69e0940710091727xf43ce68x925d6b6c4ae78f7a at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>On 10/9/07, Paul Trevithick <paul at socialphysics.org> wrote:
> >
> > If we just use a triple "Adam hasHairColor blonde" where blonde is a
> > literal, we've no ability to make statements about the value "blonde". So
> > what we do in Higgins is use two triples shown loosely here:
> >
> > Adam hasHairColor value1
> > value1 value "blonde"
> > value1 expires "Jan 1, 2010"
> > value1 source "Dept of Motor Vehicles"
> >
> > Where "value1" is a subclass of Value (probably StringValue, to be
> > precise).
>
>
>
>Naively, I wonder what you mean by value1 expires "Jan 1, 2010"
>does the blonde-ness of Adam's hair expire?
>
>If you mean that the hair color information is known to be good on Jan 1,
>2010, good for you,
>but I find even that confusing.
>
>In general, this seems like some categorial error of talking about a value
>having an expiration date.
>The best I can assume from this snippet is that Adam's driver's license is
>expiring in Jan 1, 2010
>which is totally different...
>
>David
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
>http://idcommons.net/pipermail/person-ontology/attachments/20071009/84abfe97/attachment-0001.htm
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 20:40:16 -0400
>From: "Paul Trevithick" <paul at socialphysics.org>
>Subject: Re: [Person-ontology] first contributions - is the Higgins
> top-level useful?
>To: "'David Whitten'" <david.j.whitten at gmail.com>
>Cc: person-ontology at idcommons.net
>Message-ID: <000901c80ad6$2334c880$d514a8c0 at t43>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>What I meant by the two statements "value1 expires Jan 1, 2010" and "value1
>source DMV" taken together is that the fact that Adam has blonde hair as
>attested by the DMV is a statement that is considered authoritative on or
>before Jan 1, 2010. "DMV" is the source of the value, "Jan 1, 2010" is the
>date after which they are no longer willing to stand behind that assertion.
>
>
>
> _____
>
>From: David Whitten [mailto:david.j.whitten at gmail.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 8:27 PM
>To: Paul Trevithick
>Cc: phmartin at phmartin.info; person-ontology at idcommons.net
>Subject: Re: [Person-ontology] first contributions - is the Higgins
>top-level useful?
>
>
>
>
>
>On 10/9/07, Paul Trevithick <paul at socialphysics.org> wrote:
>
>If we just use a triple "Adam hasHairColor blonde" where blonde is a
>literal, we've no ability to make statements about the value "blonde". So
>what we do in Higgins is use two triples shown loosely here:
>
> Adam hasHairColor value1
> value1 value "blonde"
> value1 expires "Jan 1, 2010"
> value1 source "Dept of Motor Vehicles"
>
>Where "value1" is a subclass of Value (probably StringValue, to be precise).
>
>
>
>
>Naively, I wonder what you mean by value1 expires "Jan 1, 2010"
>does the blonde-ness of Adam's hair expire?
>
>If you mean that the hair color information is known to be good on Jan 1,
>2010, good for you,
>but I find even that confusing.
>
>In general, this seems like some categorial error of talking about a value
>having an expiration date.
>The best I can assume from this snippet is that Adam's driver's license is
>expiring in Jan 1, 2010
>which is totally different...
>
>David
>
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
>http://idcommons.net/pipermail/person-ontology/attachments/20071009/462e7176/attachment-0001.htm
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 03:00:54 -0500
>From: "David Whitten" <david.j.whitten at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Person-ontology] first contributions - is the Higgins
> top-level useful?
>To: "Paul Trevithick" <paul at socialphysics.org>
>Cc: person-ontology at idcommons.net
>Message-ID:
> <aa69e0940710100100o3b73f4fex315a5411c5154a89 at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Oh,
>I expected that is exactly what you meant.
>Unfortunately, that is not what the logical statements were.
>You mentioned on another thread about difficulties with with reifying
>statements.
>
>You actually want the "expires jan 1, 2010" to apply to the reified
>statement that "Adam has HairColor blonde"
>rather than to the value of "Adam hasHairColor"
>
>As stated, you said the expires predicate applied to value1 and value of
>value1 is "blonde"
>
>(as an aside, isn't blonde the colour of women's hair and blond the color of
>men's hair? I seem to recall some English teacher drilling that into my head
>at some point...)
>
>I expected what you meant to say was:
>
> value1 value (Adam hasHairColor "blonde")
> value1 expires "Jan 1, 2010"
> value1 source "Dept of Motor Vehicles"
>
>
>I used a parenthesis to indicate the predicate as a whole you should tell us
>what the syntax
>that you have in Higgins that you use to tie a value to a reified statement.
>
>Best Regards,
>David
>
>On 10/9/07, Paul Trevithick <paul at socialphysics.org> wrote:
> >
> > What I meant by the two statements "value1 expires Jan 1, 2010" and
> > "value1 source DMV" taken together is that the fact that Adam has blonde
> > hair as attested by the DMV is a statement that is considered authoritative
> > on or before Jan 1, 2010. "DMV" is the source of the value, "Jan 1,
> 2010" is
> > the date after which they are no longer willing to stand behind that
> > assertion.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* David Whitten [mailto:david.j.whitten at gmail.com]
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 09, 2007 8:27 PM
> > *To:* Paul Trevithick
> > *Cc:* phmartin at phmartin.info; person-ontology at idcommons.net
> > *Subject:* Re: [Person-ontology] first contributions - is the Higgins
> > top-level useful?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/9/07, *Paul Trevithick* <paul at socialphysics.org> wrote:
> >
> > If we just use a triple "Adam hasHairColor blonde" where blonde is a
> > literal, we've no ability to make statements about the value "blonde". So
> > what we do in Higgins is use two triples shown loosely here:
> >
> > Adam hasHairColor value1
> > value1 value "blonde"
> > value1 expires "Jan 1, 2010"
> > value1 source "Dept of Motor Vehicles"
> >
> > Where "value1" is a subclass of Value (probably StringValue, to be
> > precise).
> >
> >
> >
> > Naively, I wonder what you mean by value1 expires "Jan 1, 2010"
> > does the blonde-ness of Adam's hair expire?
> >
> > If you mean that the hair color information is known to be good on Jan 1,
> > 2010, good for you,
> > but I find even that confusing.
> >
> > In general, this seems like some categorial error of talking about a value
> > having an expiration date.
> > The best I can assume from this snippet is that Adam's driver's license is
> > expiring in Jan 1, 2010
> > which is totally different...
> >
> > David
> >
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
>http://idcommons.net/pipermail/person-ontology/attachments/20071010/89669c98/attachment.htm
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Person-ontology mailing list
>Person-ontology at idcommons.net
>http://idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/person-ontology
>
>
>End of Person-ontology Digest, Vol 1, Issue 11
>**********************************************
More information about the Person-ontology
mailing list