Re: [Obi-devel] new terms for PLAN from data_transformation

[frank g. <Fra...@nc...>]

Hi,

I still don't see how this is more efficient than having the has_participant
relation with an instrument performing a role/function. What does
utilises_instrument give you other than a human readable relation conflating
the role and the relation?

Frank

On Nov 30, 2007 9:28 AM, Alan Ruttenberg <ala...@gm...> wrote:

>
> On Nov 30, 2007, at 3:23 AM, Matthew Pocock wrote:
>
> > On Friday 30 November 2007, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> >> Just because an instrument participates in a process doesn't mean it
> >> is realizing the instrument's role.
> >
> > I quite agree - consider a scales being used to weigh a lazer.
> >
> >> So I may have a scanner, which is an instrument, but it participates
> >> only in that I use it as a table.
> >> One would use utilizes_instrument when the scanner is scanning
> >> something in the process.
> >
> > OK, this is clear. However, I don't think it has the entailments you
> > intend...
>
> You mean the current version in the svn?(agreed)  Or the idea in
> general?(not sure what you mean)
>
> >> The utilizes_instrument (should) have the additional implications
> >> that the domain is a process that realizes the instrument's role, and
> >> that range (the purported instrument) has some instrument role.
> >
> > Well, clearly this is so. However, I don't think this changes the
> > inference
> > issue, and in addition, now you are stating the knowledge twice.
> > Firstly, you
> > have the role and its realization as they pertain to the instrument
> > and the
> > process. Secondly, you have a specialised relation.
> Yes, but by using the relation, with appropriate domain, range and
> possibly other axioms, we can get the other part for free.
> > Either one is sufficient
> > to know what is participating in the activity in what capacity.
> > However,
> > there is an a-symmetry here. If you state it in terms of the
> > relation, you
> > will be able to infer (given the domain/range restrictions you
> > envisage) it
> > in terms of roles. If you state it in terms of roles, you will be
> > unable to
> > infer it in terms of relations.
> >
> > So, given something like:
> >
> > Process p
> > Instrument i
> > SpecificRole r
> > domain(utilizes_instrument Process)
> > range(utilizes_instrument Instrument)
> >
> > p has_participant i
> > p realizes r
> > i bears r
> >
> > We can not infer:
> >
> > p utilizes_instrument i
> >
> > Is this intended behavior?
>
> It is suboptimal, but not devastating. We still get the benefit of the
> concise statement using the relationship, and a set of inferences for
> things that we would have to state over and over again if we didn't
> use the relationship. We have to be a bit more careful if we want to
> recover all cases of the relationship in the query. However, even if
> so, we are still ahead of the game, as we would have had to do the
> harder query anyways if we didn't have the specific relation. I have
> to think about whether we can recover some of what we want using gcis,
> or new features of OWL 1.1 - that may be possible.
>
> >> I thought we had put in something to that effect, but on inspection
> >> of the file it seems we only have some documentation, and probably
> >> not adequate docs.
> >>
> >> Hopefully that explains the motivation and the difference.
> >
> > It explains it perfectly. Could I sugest that what we really require
> > is the
> > ability to use a different term ("has participant" vs "utilizes
> > instrument")
> > for a single relation (has_participant) depending on what it is
> > relating,
> > rather than a sub-relation?
> explain?
> > I understand that support for situational
> > terminology is just as absent from OWL as reasoning over properties.
> > However,
> > the rout traveled so far seems to be a terminological one represented
> > directly in the relations with unfortunate side-effects in the
> > reasoning.
> >
> >>
> >> -Alan
> >
> > Matthew
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
> from Novell.  From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going
> mainstream.  Let it simplify your IT future.
> http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4
> _______________________________________________
> Obi-devel mailing list
> Obi...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/obi-devel
>



-- 
Frank Gibson
Research Associate
Room 2.19, Devonshire Building
School of Computing Science,
University of Newcastle upon Tyne,
Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44-191-246-4933
Fax: +44-191-246-4905