This makes sense. All I was saying was that definite (here I mean
those used for unique existence statements) functions like 'fatherOf'
*seem* more intuitive candidates for Pat's principle. (02)
And yes, I also agree those 'a'/'an' names are obviously more
informative for human eyes than skolem functions. (03)
On Dec 17, 2007, at 23:07 , John F. Sowa wrote: (04)
> You could define a systematic naming convention for such cases:
>> How about this one, then?
>> (forall ((x human)) (exists ((y human_arm)) (part x y)))
>> 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
> If it's not unique, then name the function aHumanArmOf(x).
> If it's unique, then name the function theHeadOf(x).
> 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
Bill Andersen (andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Ontology Works, Inc. (www.ontologyworks.com)
3600 O'Donnell Street, Suite 600
Baltimore, MD 21224
Cell: 443-858-6444 (06)
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 (07)