>FP> Why should employee be a role while chair is not? (01)
>For very good reasons: a chair can be recognized by the
>properties it has in itself without looking at anything else
>(but one can use things that are not chairs *as* a chair).
>But you can't tell whether a person is an employee without
>considering something else. See the KR book for a discussion
>of Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness. (02)
>John (03)
To add to the discussion:
It might be hard to recognize a transferase (kind of enzyme) by the properties
it has, but maybe not impossible, so we enter the grey zone there, is it a
role, or an actual enzyme characterized by the possible role/function it (can)
bear?
Simply said, identifying whether something is a 'natural kind' or a role might
be very hard in some cases and completely depends on the level of granularity
of your ontology or the background of the modeler. (04)
David (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)
|