Pat, (01)
I see no need to
>discuss it at the present time, but if there is a technical
>objection to having the "Context" concept at the top
>level, I would like to hear such comments. (02)
The technical objection is that it's not needed, and that Physical and
Abstract form a partition meaning that any addition at that level results
in a change, and therefore needs some justification. (03)
> > I agree with Adam that "physical" and "abstract" are exhaustive under
> > "entity" as represented in SUMO now. I also agree that "context"
> > constitutes a whole separate area that is being studied and pursued.
>
> I also agree with Adam that "physical" and "abstract" are
>intended to be exhaustive under "entity" as represented in
>SUMO now. And I have no problem with the notion that
>every *instance* of an entity would be either Abstract
>or Physical. However, I cannot find any **axioms** in my
>copy of SUMO 1.566 which state that there cannot be any
>direct subclasses of "Entity" other than "Abstract"
>or "Physical". (04)
The statement is (05)
(partition Entity Physical Abstract) (06)
at line 734. You may need to refer to the axioms which define &%partition (07)
Adam (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (09)
|