PS: Here's a list of obo defined properties on relationships: https://metacpan.org/pod/OBO::Core::RelationshipType#is_cyclic
While obo ontologies have assert whether a relationship has one or more of these properties, it doesn't really rigorously or logically define these properties in terms of their logical meaning (only true or false). Of course, that is something that the AtomSpace allows for that is missing from ontologies. Thus this is something I'd like to rigorously encode. Of course, these properties are not going to be enough to exhaustively define a relationship, but maybe they're a great way to start. To make clear why they don't exhaustively define relationship types, let me give an example; the relationship is_married-to is defined by a number of things: who can be married? In most places on earth, two adult human beings (not 5 or 1, but 2, not children) and in some places one of them has to be a woman and the other, a man, where this really depends on the context. But knowing who or what can be involved in a relationship (sometimes included in an ontology as range and domain) and the fact that it is symmetric etc isn't enough to define this relationship either! Also important, to stick with is_married_to as an example, are what it implies about roles etc, and that it is likely, after being recently married to have children (either to adopt them or to have them via birth of the woman) and also that it is an expression of love, a commitment etc. ...now, every relationship has these aspects; some are ontological in nature, some imply further things and others are part of the legal code or pertain to the nature of these relationships and natural law. Each relationship could be encoded in these ways in the AtomSpace correct? Johannes On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 8:54:11 AM UTC, Johannes Castner wrote: > > Hi Nil, > > I've been working quite hard on some code that will allow to easily take > any knowledge base, written either in obo or owl format and to load it into > the AtomSpace. The subtle questions begin with how to encode certain > assertions into the AtomSpace so that the meaning is best encoded into the > Atomese logic. For the Environmental Ontology, combined with the > Sustainable Development Goals Interface Ontology we have the following > relationships and I wonder if you might have some guidance for us as to how > to encode them best in Scheme Atomese. Note that for each of those, we also > have some properties (such as is_symmetric, is_transitive...): > > has_increased_levels_of > causally_influences > positively_regulated_by > coincident_with > input_of > location_of > has_part_that_occurs_in > causally_related_to > involved_in_positive_regulation_of > involved_in_regulation_of > acts_upstream_of > spatially_disjoint_from > provides_nutrients_for > realized_in_response_to > during_which_ends > has_quality > has_output > produces > capable_of > interacts_with > has_end_location > contains_process > attached_to_part_of > involved_in > develops_into > enables > has_member > during_which_starts > regulated_by > has_participant > ends_after > has_developmental_contribution_from > bounding_layer_of > causally_upstream_of,_positive_effect > preceded_by > starts > has_part > quality_of > inheres_in_part_of > immediately_causally_upstream_of > participates_in_a_biotic-biotic_interaction_with > contributes_to > in_branching_relationship_with > causal_agent_in > disconnected_from > RO:0002495 > located_in > has_disposition > depends_on > has_function > determines > trophically_interacts_with > ends_during > happens_during > part_of > participates_in > occurs_in > causally_downstream_of_or_within > part_of_structure_that_is_capable_of > RO:0002225 > drains > directly_regulates > surrounded_by > formed_as_result_of > tributary_of > has_condition > has_active_participant > contained_in > results_in_expansion_of > has_potential_to_directly_develop_into > biomechanically_related_to > causally_upstream_of_or_within > connected_to > determined_by_part_of > results_in_transformation_into > partially_surrounded_by > biotically_interacts_with > disposition_of > developmentally_preceded_by > has_habitat > capable_of_negatively_regulating > developmentally_related_to > actively_participates_in > PATO:0005016 > involved_in_negative_regulation_of > enables_activity_in > molecularly_controls > ends_with > precedes > results_in_formation_of > continuous_with > mereotopologically_related_to > determined_by > starts_with > surrounds > positively_regulates > developmentally_contributes_to > related_via_dependence_to > causally_influenced_by > adjacent_to > spatially_coextensive_with > temporally_related_to > role_of > partially_overlaps > realized_in > regulates_(processual) > acts_upstream_of_or_within > has_causal_agent > has_developmental_potential_involving > capable_of_positively_regulating > causal_relation_between_material_entities > realizes > derives_into > encompasses > member_of > RO:0009001 > FOODON:00001303 > has_part_structure_that_is_capable_of > ecologically_related_to > enabled_by > ends > causally_upstream_of,_negative_effect > overlaps > produced_by > developmentally_succeeded_by > has_input > immediately_causally_downstream_of > has_potential_to_develop_into > contains > connects > starts_during > results_in_proliferation_of > involved_in_or_involved_in_regulation_of > causal_relation_between_processes > bearer_of > immediately_preceded_by > derives_from > capable_of_regulating > has_start_location > has_role > immediately_precedes > FOODON:00002420 > composed_primarily_of > distributary_of > capable_of_part_of > causally_upstream_of > functionally_related_to > causal_relation_between_material_entity_and_a_process > negatively_regulates > towards > molecularly_interacts_with > negatively_regulated_by > output_of > inheres_in > causally_downstream_of > results_in_developmental_progression_of > function_of > acquires_nutrients_from > attached_to > has_potential_to_developmentally_contribute_to > develops_from > > > > On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 8:50:10 AM UTC, Nil wrote: >> >> On 1/18/19 3:12 PM, Johannes Castner wrote: >> > Do you know of a simpler way than to hand-code those Axioms >> > individually? I mean, do you know if they might not already be encoded >> > somewhere? If I have to, I'll encode all of them by hand--quite a >> project! >> >> Unfortunately I doubt such axioms are encoded anywhere. >> >> I have intended to supplement PLN rules with higher order facts (HOF) >> to, among other things, define an ontology of relationships such as >> >> ImplicationScope (stv 1 1) >> P >> And >> Member >> P >> Concept "binary" >> Member >> P >> Concept "transitive" >> ImplicationScope >> VariableList X Y Z >> And >> Evaluation >> P >> List X Y >> Evaluation >> P >> List Y Z >> Evaluation >> P >> List X Z >> >> so that one may directly write >> >> Member (stv 1 1) >> Predicate "be-friends" >> Concept "transitive" >> >> Then PLN would need an extra step to reason about the transitiveness of >> be-friends but it would make it much more compact to encode. >> >> These facts are planned to be placed under >> >> https://github.com/opencog/opencog/tree/master/opencog/pln/facts >> >> but, as you can see, only one is present ATM. >> >> Nil >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opencog" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/70a2842d-5c2d-4754-a79a-4cf9e4b28856%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
