Adam Pease wrote: (01)
> Hi Peter,
> If the phrase "must not be a real world entity" is definitive, then
> I think we'd just add a constraint to the relationship that not only
> is it a SymbolicString, but also that the string does not refer to an
> instance of &%Physical. We could subclass SymbolicString with
> NonReferentialString and the axiom
>
> (=>
> (instance ?X NonReferentialString)
> (not
> (exists (?Y)
> (and
> (instance ?Y Physical)
> (refers ?X ?Y)))))
>
> That seems a little hokey to me though. What would be a case of a
> code not referring to something in the real world? What does "real
> world" mean more specifically? Does it directly correspond with
> SUMO's Physical?
>
> Adam (02)
mm1: Here is an extract from CCTS v2.01 if this should help: (03)
"The representation of the information in a Core Component whose Core
Component Type is Code. Type should use a standard issued by a recognized
standards body, whenever a standard exists. If international standards
are not used a business driven justification shall be provided." (04)
I've also attached a paper from Mike Adcock, now deceased, who wrote
about the quandry about code and identifier. A lot has been done and
debated since this was produced in June 2002. As a final note, if it is
a real world object, the representation term is used instead (if memory
serves me correctly) not the Code. Type. Thanks. (05)
UBL-LCSC_Code-Identifier-Definitive-062402.doc
Description: MS-Word document
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|