#22 RelationshipType extent and OneToOneFunction
Relation has 265 subcolllections, RelationshipType has
262 instances. I suggest that all subcollections of
Relation should be instances of RelationshipType.
Which are missing?
Mt : UniversalVocabularyMt
EL Query :
(and
(genls ?X Relation)
(not
(isa ?X RelationshipType)))
Answer ?X
*[Explain #3] ModalOperator
*[Explain #2] NLMorphologyPredicate
*[Explain #1] ActionPredicate
*[Explain #0] ComplexActionPredicate
Note that negation by failure was enabled and inference
in InferencePSC did not find a result.
If we add these four collections to the extent of
RelationshipType the number of instances would be 266.
Consequently, there must be one instance of
RelationshipType, which is not a subcollection of
Relation contrary to the monotonic assertion in
UniversalVocabularyMt:
(typeGenls RelationshipType Relation).
The one is OneToOneFunction:
Mt : UniversalVocabularyMt
EL Query :
(and
(not
(genls ?X Relation))
(isa ?X RelationshipType))
Answer ?X
*[Explain] OneToOneFunction
Logged In: YES
user_id=1085367
Assuming that RelationshipType (to be renamed as
RelationType, incidentally) means the same as (SpecsFn
Relation), you are right. The problem seems to be fixed
now, however. (At least in OpenCyc and full Cyc; I haven't
checked ResearchCyc.) Moreover, our policy is to avoid
reifiying "powercollections" (analogous to powersets), i.e.
the collection of all subcollections of some collection. We
can always denote the powercollection of a collection using
SpecsFn (which is unreifiable). There are still numerous
powercollections in the KB, but most if not all of them
should eventually be eliminated.