[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 22:48:28 -0500
Message-id: <9B3B0457-A328-40AA-B176-5DC2CDB98861@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi John.    (01)

On Dec 17, 2007, at 22:44 , John F. Sowa wrote:    (02)

> Bill,
> There is another principle:  If you start with contrived axioms,
> you're likely to get contrived results:
>> (forall ((x person)) (exists (y) (and (has x y) (not (part y
>> EmpireStateBuilding))))))
>> 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'.
> I can't imagine why anyone would put that axiom into a knowledge
> base that was supposed to serve some useful purpose.    (03)

Well, I admit it was contrived.  You got me.  How about this one, then?    (04)

        (forall ((x human)) (exists ((y human_arm)) (part x y)))    (05)

which also violates, for anatomically normal humans, uniqueness.  I  
believe that the U-Wash Foundational Model of Anatomy (FMA), which is  
meant to be a normative model of human anatomy, contains many such  
axioms.    (06)

> Can you find any useful axioms of the A-E form whose Skolem functions
> would be "contrived"?    (07)

I think I just did ;-D    (08)

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    (09)

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    (010)

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