[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is th

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Bill Andersen <andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:29:28 -0500
Message-id: <762BEFA0-4280-4F77-AD45-75E5BBBBFD83@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Pat..    (01)

On Dec 17, 2007, at 22:03 , Pat Hayes wrote:    (02)

> All of which suggests to me that any KR system
> that has to resort to Skolemization is not
> providing the proper engineering support for good
> ontology construction.
> Comments?    (03)

I like the principle on its face, but what about this example AE  
sentence    (04)

(forall ((x person)) (exists (y) (and (has x y) (not (part y  
EmpireStateBuilding))))))    (05)

True when every person has something that isn't part of the Empire  
State Building.  The function introduced in the form you suggest would  
look pretty contrived -- or at least not so natural as 'fatherOf'.  It  
seems to me the seemingly "natural" cases arise when we're not talking  
about mere existence claims but rather about unique existence claims,  
but that's just a guess.    (06)

.bill    (07)

Bill Andersen (andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Ontology Works, Inc. (www.ontologyworks.com)
3600 O'Donnell Street, Suite 600
Baltimore, MD 21224
Office: 410-675-1201
Cell: 443-858-6444    (08)

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    (09)

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