[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Re: The issue of Context

To: cassidy@xxxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Adam Pease <adampease@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:51:57 -0800
Message-id: <>
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/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (09)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>