Dear Kiyong, (01)
> Thanks again for letting me present my comments. (02)
Thanks for presenting your comments. They lead to very useful
improvements of the document at various places. (03)
> One comment on the term property:
> Property (treated as a binary relation over indivduals in OWL,
> characterizing classes)
> What about the above definition of "property"?
> Treating something as something differs from denoting something. Last
> night, I said that, in classical (extensional) predicate logic, a verb
> like "run" is treated as a mondic relation R, often called "property",
> as represented "R(Jane)" as a wff taking one argument (role), but that,
> in the neo-Davidsonian event semantics, this predicate is treated as a
> binary predicate taking two arguments, e and a role, as
> represented "R(e,x) & NAMED(x, Jane) & AGENT(x)", where e is a varaible
> of type event. Then a question arises concerning the denotation of such
> a predicate R and how a model is constructed for such event predicates
> in the neo-Davidsonian framwork.
> Perhpas I am making the simple issue more complicated, which no one
> cares about. (04)
I think the whole issue is a mis-understanding of the nature of ISO
17437 OntoIOp, and in particular of the role of "non-logical symbol".
Since this point is very central to OntoIOp, I include the ontoiop-forum
list in the cc. (05)
ISO 17347 OntoIOp's term "non-logical symbol" is a very abstract and
general term. It has the following instances:
* OWL individuals
* OWL classes
* OWL properties
* Common Logic names
* Common Logic sequence markers
* RDF resource references
* propositional logic's propositional variables
* FOL operation symbols
* FOL predicate symbols
* F-logic operation symbols
* F-logic predicate symbols
* CASL sorts
* CASL operation symbols
* CASL predicate symbols
* EER entites
* EER relationships
* EER attributes
* UML classes
* UML attributes
* UML methods
* UML aggregations
* UML associations
* RIF constant symbols
* RIF variable symbols
* RIF argument names (06)
The details of all these ontology-language specific terms are not
subject of ISO 17347 OntoIOp, but subject of the individual standards
defining these languages. So if you want to discuss about Common Logic
sequence markers, ask ISO/IEC JT1 SC32 defining ISO/IEC 24707:2007. If
you want to discuss UML aggregations, ask the OMG, or ask ISO/IEC JT1
SC7 defining ISO/IEC 19501:2005. And if you want to discuss OWL
properties, ask the W3C. (07)
In clause 3.1.3 of the current Working Draft of ISO 17347 OntoIOp, we
list some examples, namely the first five of the above list. Would it
help it include different examples? or even all of the above examples?
It should be clear that *none* of these examples can be discussed in any
detail in 3.1.3. (08)
All the best,
Till (09)
--
Prof. Dr. Till Mossakowski Cartesium, room 2.51 Phone +49-421-218-64226
DFKI GmbH Bremen Fax +49-421-218-9864226
Cyber-Physical Systems Till.Mossakowski@xxxxxxx
Enrique-Schmidt-Str. 5, D-28359 Bremen
http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~till/ (010)
Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz GmbH
principal office, *not* the address for mail etc.!!!:
Trippstadter Str. 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern
management board: Prof. Wolfgang Wahlster (chair), Dr. Walter Olthoff
supervisory board: Prof. Hans A. Aukes (chair)
Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313 (011)
_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:ontoiop-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontoiop-forum/
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontoiop-forum/
Community Files (open): http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntoIOp (012)
|