| |
 |
|
Overview
General Formal Ontology (GFO)
|
10.1 Relations, Relators and Relational Roles
Let us first consider the connection between a relation and its
arguments (referring to facts on an intuitive basis). At this point, a
particular fact seems to involve a relation and particular arguments.
John's being a patient of hospital is one fact, while
the same John's being a patient of hospital amounts to a different
fact. Different particular arguments are involved in these facts, but
the same relationship appears, namely ``being a patient of''. For this
reason we assume that relations exhibit a categorial
character.24
As a consequence, we must identify the instances of a relation.
In contrast to the extensional definition of relations
in a mathematical reading, we do not consider the mere collection of
the arguments with respect to a single fact, as an instance of a
relation. For example, the pair
is
not an instance of the relation ``being a patient of''. Instead, we
assume
that there are individual entities with the power of connecting other
entities (of any kind). These connecting entities are called
relators or relation individuals, and they are the instances of
a relation.
Relators themselves offer an ``internal'' structure that allows one
to distinguish the differences between the way in which the arguments of a
relation participate in a fact. Returning to the example,
John is
involved differently in the fact of being a patient of hospital , as
is the hospital. Exchanging John and the hospital would
result in a strange sentence like ``the hospital is a patient of
John''. We say that John and the hospital play different roles in that
relationship. Formally, this leads us to the introduction of an additional
type of entity: relational roles25. A relator can be decomposed into relational
roles, such that each role is a mediator between exactly one argument
and the relator.
Now, the link between an argument and a relator can be
completed. The relationship between relators and roles is called
role-of. As indicated in
(37,36), role-of might be
understood as a subtype of an abstract part-of relationship (namely
between roles and relators), but we will not adopt this definition until a sound
standing comparison of the role-of and part-of relations is available.
Further, roles must be connected with the relata of the relator.
This purpose is served by the basic relation
plays. It is then subsumed by the
basic relation dependent-on,
because roles are a specific kind of dependent entity: they are
dependent on their player (which is the relatum) and on complementary
roles (such that the totality of involved roles constitutes the
relator).
Robert Hoehndorf
2006-10-18
|
|