[sc34wg3] New syntax for (binary) associations

Steve Pepper pepper.steve at gmail.com
Sun Feb 3 07:17:41 EST 2008

* Robert Barta
| **IF** we go for a default role type, then I would prefer
| tm:thing (subject, whatever) for both. 'Subject' and
| 'Object' describe the roles of something _in the statement_,
| not what I actually want to express.

This is the point I was trying to make about how Dmitry is
conflating grammatical roles and semantic roles. Subject and
object belong to the realm of syntax. In semantics one finds
other role types, such as agent, experiencer, patient, theme,
etc. In any given utterance each entity plays one semantic role
and one grammatical role.

What we need is the ability to say that in a particular context,
role type X (say, employee) is to be regarded as the "subject",
and role type Y (say, employer) is to be regarded as the
"object". The same mechanism could in theory be used to annotate
an ontology in order to support automated translation to RDF.

So instead of tm:subject and tm:object we need something like
tm:subject-role and tm:object-role.


More information about the sc34wg3 mailing list