I think you make a good point about the distinction between
composition and aggregation: (02)
A related ontological issue is the distinction between sets and
structures. More generally, it reflects the most often ignored,
but often the most important question: why? (04)
The questions who? what? when? where? and how? can usually be
answered by specifying something observable. But to ask why?
is to ask for an explanation -- some general principle that
determines why those particular things are related. (05)
Although I like the basic points you make, I have one criticism: (06)
> Composition and Aggregation are both types of Binary Relationships.
> They are also both specializations of the "whole-part" pattern,
> a pattern in which a whole "thing" has parts. (07)
The question why? always requires a triadic answer, which says
something A is related to something B for the reason C. (08)
If you look at the ontologies that people have been developing and
proposing during the past decade or so, the aspects that have been
the most neglected are the ones that require triadic relations. (09)
Examples include Business, Organization, System, Contract, etc.
Somebody may say "a business is a set of people who work together."
But that doesn't distinguish a business from a bazaar, where
multiple vendors have set up competing stands. It's necessary
to add that third argument "for the purpose of ...". (010)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (012)