Skip to content

Jaron Cheung's Project #3 Submission #74

Open
JaronJCheung wants to merge 59 commits into
johnbeve:mainfrom
JaronJCheung:JaronJCheung-P-3
Open

Jaron Cheung's Project #3 Submission #74
JaronJCheung wants to merge 59 commits into
johnbeve:mainfrom
JaronJCheung:JaronJCheung-P-3

Conversation

@JaronJCheung
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Dear @johnbeve,

My Project 3 is complete! Please let me know if you need anything else from me or if there are any issues with my submission.

Thanks and take care,
Jaron


The object property, “aligned with”, should not have the transitive property listed.

For this object property, there is no definition expressed. Instead, there is an editor’s note that states: “May be obsoleted, see https://github.com/oborel/obo-relations/issues/260”. If you follow this link, you will see four collaborators deliberate on whether to make this term obsolete. It was cited that “aligned with” was used to define at least one widely used relation, “fasciculates with”. Upon searching this object property, it is now a subproperty of “overlaps”. Subsequently, on October 15th, 2020, nlharris added the obsolete label to the term.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Isn't aligned with wrt spatial orientation? Wouldn't that be transitive? I found one on Ontobee from PATO that seemed to be influential for RO


Based on its label, one cannot infer that “aligned with” necessitates a transitive relation between x and z. For example, x may be aligned with y, y may be aligned with z, but x may not be aligned with z. It would be said that x is aligned with y (i.e. shares a border), but x is not aligned with z.

Imagine two lines of blocks that intersect at block B. Call one row 'Vertical' and the other 'Horizontal'. A is a block in Vertical, but not Horizontal. C is a block in Horizontal, but not Vertical. And B is in both Vertical and Horizontal. A is aligned with B, since they're in the same row, and B is aligned with C for the same reason, but A is not aligned with B.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Love these thoughts


Arm is an instance of fiat object part

“Sally participates in having at least one arm on Tuesday” is an instance of occurrent
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Need to parse this stuff out in non-occurrent terms :)


“Three years span 1” is an instance_of one-dimensional temporal region.

Notice that the original phrase doesn’t say anything about Goofus and Gallant being married to each other, and we won’t represent such a fact.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ambiguity should suggest modeling more, not less


s: Sally

**∃x (Tx ∧ ∃y (Hsy∧Ay)) ∧ ∃x (Wx ∧ ~∃y(Hsy∧Ay))**
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Says Sally doesn't have any arm on W


**(b) Every liver has some cell as part at all times it exists.**

L: liver
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Time?


**(d) Goofus and Gallant have been married for three years; for each day of that span, it is true to assert they are married.**

Again, notice we are not modeling that Goofus and Gallant are married to each other.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Model more, not less


**EL15:**

Do you remember the last time we talked, we learned about how description logic, the finite model property, and tree model property are ways of teaching computers about the world using words and rules? Well there is another way that we can use description logic to help a computer understand the world better, the Pellet reasoner and its use of incremental reasoning!
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Love it ha

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants