Hi Monica,
Thanks for the feedback. Replies below. (01)
At 07:25 AM 10/27/2004, Monica J. Martin wrote:
>Adam Pease wrote:
>
>>Folks,
>> I've posted a new version of the CCTrep.kif file, and mappings from
>> SUMO to the CCT, linked at the top of the page
>> <http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CctRepresentation>. Comment
>welcome.
>>
>>Adam
>
>mm1: Adam, in reviewing this I see good work but wonder about the
>associations / assumptions that have been made [1]. For example:
>
> * Code. Type: SymbolicString - This is not about brevity. It is
> about a consistent mechanism to type information in order to
> provide a baseline for representation. May need further review. (02)
For item 03-000, the CCT text actually says "A character string (letters,
figures or symbols) that for brevity and/or language independence may be
used ..." In terms of capturing the semantics of this item, if it can
represent anything, then we can't say anything more about it other than
it's a string. (03)
> * DateTime: time - Insufficient to provide a date because many
> applications use the date time for deadlines - not 24 hours, but
> 21-Jan-2005. (04)
The SUMO relation &%time relates something to a point on the timeline,
which is both a date and a time. So, I think this is correct for item 04-000. (05)
> * Measure Unit. Code: ConstantQuantity - You have to drill down to
> understand the semantic association [2]. (06)
07-002 should probably be SUMO UnitOfMeasure since it appears just to the
unit, without the number of the units. Do you agree? (07)
> * Agency: Agent - An agency is not an individual but a grouping
> mechanism for an authority (that may be comprised of people). [2] (08)
For 09-005 I think this is correct. SUMO &%Agent includes groups of people. (09)
>Thanks.
>
>[1] I've only copied you as I've not had time to follow this in any detail. (010)
Actually, it looks like you sent this to the ontolog-forum, but that's ok I
think. (011)
>[2] I have some hesitation to say some of these associations of natural
>language and CCT fit. My concern lies in that 0...n CCT may be associated
>with this natural language and you lose the specificity of that typing
>mechanism in that association. Perhaps you can provide more details so I
>understand the reasoning better. (012)
I'm not sure what you mean by "associations of natural language and
CCT". SUMO is a formal, logical model, and definitely not natural
language. Have you clicked on the links to SUMO, in order to read the axioms? (013)
Thanks again for the comments. (014)
Adam (015)
>_________________________________________________________________
>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 (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (017)
|