[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] misunderstandings about OntoClean

To: Ontolog forum <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Claudio Cardone <c.cardone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:08:53 +0200
Message-id: <46E55E05.4080906@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Studying the OntoClean methodology, I think I have found some matter of 
misunderstanding. I try to explain my point of view,  please give me 
some feedbacks, because I'm a novice here:    (01)

In the OntoClean papers (e.g. see 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/resource/presentation/OntoClean--ChrisWelty_20041118/guarinowelty_final_v4.pdf    (02)

<http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/resource/presentation/OntoClean--ChrisWelty_20041118/guarinowelty_final_v4.pdf>)    (03)

rigid, non rigid and anti-rigid metaproperties are assigned to each 
class (property) of a given taxonomy, isolating it from the others and 
studying its meaning.
It seems to me that I can define a non rigid or an anti-rigid class only 
if I have a rigid class of reference that has some identity criteria. In 
fact, i can't say that "student" is an anti-rigid property if i don't 
have in my mind the concept of human as a rigid class with some identity 
criteria. To say that some instance of "student" can change and become 
something else without disappearing i need to know that the instance 
holds its identity because it belongs to another rigid property (that 
necessarily subsumes "student"). So it can be misunderstanding to assign 
the non-rigidity or anti-rigidity to one property if first we haven't 
found a +R and +O (or +I) class that includes all the instances of that 
property. Instead, it seems that I can always say if a class is rigid, 
because I "state" its rigidity in my given world, choosing a point of 
view, except if I have already chosen another point of view: for 
example, I can state that a student is a rigid class, except if I had 
already defined "human" as a non rigid class, according to the 
ontoclean's rules.    (04)

In the OntoClean papers the above mentioned difference between rigidity 
and non/anti rigidity assignment is not underlined, so may be that this 
has contributed for some misunderstanding in the use of the methodology.
What do you think about?    (05)

Thank you    (06)

Claudio    (07)

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    (08)

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