Simple part-whole relations in OWL Ontologies
How can we know what the Bible means? We are also the people of God, in covenant relationship (new covenant); while we are not the leaders of Israel, nonetheless During this step you must enter the parts-whole spiral. proach for the automatic detection of part–whole relations in text. First an algorithm . (HLT/NAACL) conference; the first and second Workshop on Text Meaning and Interpretation at the. HLT/NAACL New Testament#1–Bible# 1. The definition of the heart in the Bible isn't given in one verse; it's spread In previous posts we discussed how God created humans as a three-part The Lord tells us in Mark , “And you shall love the Lord your God from your whole heart. “Our relationship with the Lord is always begun and maintained by the heart.
What are the three primary names of God from the Old Testament? What are the three parts of man? What is original sin? What was the primary title that Jesus used to describe himself during his earthly ministry?
What is the oldest Christian creed?
As God is a tripartite -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- so man is three parts -- body, soul and spirit. In the most explicit example from Scripture of these divisions, the Apostle Paul writes: Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Thessalonians 5: Man is made up of physical material, the body, that can be seen and touched.
But he is also made up of immaterial aspects, which are intangible -- this includes the soul, spirit, intellect, will, emotions, conscience, and so forth. This note will provide basic schemas for expressing part-whole relations in OWL.
Transitive relations - parts and direct parts. An important and common requirement for the basic relation from a part to its whole that it is transitive, i. OWL provides a general construct for declaring properties to be transitive.
If we define a property, say partOf, to be transitive, then any reasoner conformant with OWL will draw the conclusions that the parts of C include both A and B.
In many applications, what is needed is not a list of all parts but rather a list of the next level breakdown of parts, the "direct parts" of a given entity. It is therfore often useful to use the property hierarchy to define a subproperty of partOf that is not transitive and links each subpart just to the next level. However, care must be taken when using inverses in restrictions on classes.
Such pairs of statements are sometimes called "reciprocals". Therefore, if reasoners are to be used, it is usually necessary to choose to use either partOf or hasPart but not both.
Almost always it is preferable to use partOf because the most common queries and class definitions are for the parts of things, e. Use cases Parts and wholes are ubiquitous in many applications: Traditional rhetoric defines metonymy as a figure of speech wherein the name of one entity is used to refer to another entity that is contiguous to it. This process of transferred reference is possible [because of] a referring function.
Thus, referring to a baseball player as a glove, as in "We need a new glove at second base," uses a salient characteristic of one domain the glove part of the baseball player to represent the entire domain the player. When the two things being compared form a part-whole relationship that is, when glove is part of the whole baseball playerthe metonymic expression is often referred to as synecdoche. Many [metonymic] models depend on conventional cultural associations e.
This principle limits the use of metonymy to only certain relationships between entities. For example, we can use the name of any well-known creative artist to refer to the artistic creations of the artist as in "Does he like Hemingway?
I could hardly say "Mary was tasty" meaning by Mary the cheesecake that Mary made. Any given instance of a referring function needs to be sanctioned by a body of beliefs encapsulated in an appropriate frame.
Thus, one widespread belief in our culture is that the distinctive value of a work of art is due uniquely to the genius of the individual who created it. But we do not normally believe that such a relationship always holds between a cake and the person who baked it.
Metonymy is one of the basic characteristics of cognition. It is extremely common for people to take one well-understood or easy-to-perceive aspect of something and use it to stand either for the thing as a whole or for some other aspect or part of it.
The kind [of metonymic models] of most interest for [categorization] are those in which a member or subcategory can stand metonymically for the whole category for the purpose of making inferences or judgements.
In Symbolic Modelling we make use of an equivalent process when we use an example of a behaviour for the whole class of behaviour. But then every example is an example of metonymy because an example is standing for the whole class of experience of which that example is a part. There is a "target" concept A. There is a conceptual structure containing both A and another concept B.
B is either part of A or closely associated with it in that conceptual structure. Typically, a choice of B will uniquely determine A, within that conceptual structure. Compared to A, B is either easier to understand, easier to remember, easier to recognise, or more immediately useful for the given purpose.
A metonymic model is a model of how A and B are related in a conceptual structure; the relationship is specified by a function from B to A. Categorization using metonymyare pp.
How to Build a Close Relationship With God > Free Bible Study Guides
A politician is conniving, egotistical, and dishonest. A bachelor is macho, and dates a lot of different women. The Japanese are industrious, polite and clever. Robins and sparrows are typical birds. Apples and oranges are typical fruits. Saws and hammers are typical tools.
The ideal husband is a good provider, faithful, strong, respected, attractive.
Marriage Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary
The Cadillac of vacuum cleaners. That is we start from a commonly recognised reference point — a part — and use this to infer something about the whole category. A human being in relation with another has very limited control over what happens in that relationship. He is a part of a two-person unit, and the control which any part can have over any whole is strictly limited The contrast between part and whole, whenever this contrast appears in the realm of communication, is simply a contrast in logical typing.
The whole is always in a meta-relationship with its parts. As in logic the proposition can never determine the meta-proposition, so also in matters of control the smaller context can never determine the larger.
Steps to an Ecology of Mind, p