Dear All,
I believe we need a many to many relation in any case, because the
decision of a part can be further decomposed or not is often arbitrary,
things like buildings use to share parts, and parts may be exchanged, so
that we are fooled by the "former or current" problem we cannot avoid.
That part-of is a-cyclic should hold, I hope...
Best,
Martin
On 10/13/2019 9:20 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
This is indeed an important discussion.
My point is the formalist view. If we have a set with a linear,
transitive ordering like < for the integers, then this will be many to
many under the transitive closure. Assume a partial ordering without
cycles: When we add transitivity the tree structure will still be
there. If we store all pair resulting from the transitive closure the
tree structure is not explicit and has to be deduced form the set of
pair. Take the whole part relationship: To make the tree structure
explicit, we need a 1 to many cardinality. The fact a R b & b R c -> a
R C has to be deduced. If we instead are interested in the transitive
closure to speed up deduction in an implementation the cardinality
will be many to many.
Chr-E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Maximilian
Schich <[email protected]>
*Sent:* 13 October 2019 17:33
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 406: Question about quantification +
transitivity + open world
One take-home from large-scale data-integration & data science is that
even the strongest assumed 1-to-many relationship in reality is
quasi-1-to-many due to differences in opinion (your tree vs. my tree),
differences in construction of strong-tree classification systems
(e.g. material/construction-method vs. construction-method/material in
architecture), and differences in data preservation (cf. the
integration of several strong-tree phylogenies based on different
knowledge of the fossil record). As a consequence it would make good
sense to model part-of relationships by default to allow for
many-to-many at least as an exception, even if the ideal is 1-to-many
for one reason or another.
Regarding this issue of "part-of as many-to-many", there is a crucial
difference between more controlled data collections for "data
reasoning" and a more realistic "data archaeology" that acknowledges
the existing multiplicity of opinion. In the case of "data reasoning"
many-to-many may be a computational hurdle. Yet in the case of "data
archaeology" forced 1-to-many relationships are evil, as they induce
an artificial discreteness in the data, very similar to the artificial
yet often conceptually enforced discreteness of races, gender, etc. In
this sense an artificial restriction of part-of semantics to 1-to-many
relationships may be a potential source of severe systematic bias that
needs to be avoided under all cost.
Consequently, there should be an emphasis on "general parts can be
shared by more than one whole", particularly when facing heterogeneous
sources of data. At the same time the audience should be provided with
an explicit explanation why "non-cyclic, wherever it applies" could be
a desire, while always accompanied by a caveat that "wherever it
applies" may be true in considerable less cases than intuition would
suggest.
Best, Max
*Dr. Maximilian Schich*
Associate Professor, The University of Texas at Dallas, ATEC
<http://www.utdallas.edu/atec/> & EODIAH
<https://www.utdallas.edu/arthistory/>
800 W Campbell Rd AT10, Richardson TX 75080
Appointments via email
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=[Appointment]>
www.schich.info <http://www.schich.info/>
On 2019-10-13 04:26, Martin Doerr wrote:
Dear Christian-Emil,
This is good. There is also another concern that in general parts can
be shared by more than one whole. I would, nevertheless, add the
constraint that part-of semantics mean also non-cyclic, wherever it
applies. Could you check that?
Best,
Martin
On 10/13/2019 8:42 AM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
Dear all,
I work my way through all the open issues. This issue origins from
an observation by Robert Sanderson that P9 cannot hav ethe
cardinality 1 to many and at the same time be transitive. This is
correct and will apply to all transitive properties. A transitive
property will always be many to many.
Have to be adjusted:
P5, P9, P10, P73
Already many to many
P69 ok,P86 ok, P89 ok, P114 ok, P115 ok, P116 ok, P117 ok, P120 ok,
P127 ok, P139 ok, P148 ok, P150 ok, P165 ok
This is just editorial changes and need no discussion.
Best,
Christian-Emil
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr
Honorary Head of the
Center for Cultural Informatics
Information Systems Laboratory
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
Vox:+30(2810)391625
Email:[email protected]
Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr
Honorary Head of the
Center for Cultural Informatics
Information Systems Laboratory
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
Vox:+30(2810)391625
Email: [email protected]
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
