[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Avoiding Hobson's Choice In Choosing An ntology

To: patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Smith, Barry" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 17:25:10 +0200
Message-id: <>
Finally, it is FOL that imposes limitations on mapping.

Assume that we have an experienced analyst that is reviewing information that has been recorded in a subject map using subject proxies. Due to their experience, they have reached a conclusion that what appears to be two distinct individuals is actually one. A conclusion that would result in merging proxies that represent the purchaser of weaponized anthrax and a recent entry into the US.

They may not have an articulable basis for that conclusion and so FOL is not going to be of any use. Should they simply not request merging the proxies on the basis of their judgment (assume the analyst is also identified as a subject) since they have no way to express it in FOL?

Hardly, one has a merging rule that says Analyst X says proxy A and proxy B represent the same subject. Utterly outside of FOL.

Why is 'a = b' outside of FOL?
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>