|To:||"[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|From:||Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:03:40 -0500|
At 12:31 PM -0400 3/19/08, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
Cecil Lynch replied:
Perhaps not, but one needs more than this to understand it. Can you give us a reasonably pithy intuitive explanation of the conceptual picture underlying this approach? For example, what kind of thing is a role, that it can have a real person as an instance? In my mental model of roles, they are binary relations (or possibly unary functions), not people. So I have a lot of trouble following this; and I think Im not alone.
I also think this approach might violate some of the often-cited ontology construction best practices, such as identifying 'rigid' properties (those which something can lose only by ceasing to exist). Presumably a rigid property of an employee will not be the same as those of a person.
If it doesn't fit one's
the offending term.
Not good enough. Nobody can write axioms when they have no idea what the axioms are supposed to be saying.
The logic stays the same.
Of course the type "Role" is not a Person, neither is the type "Person" a
Quite. But to be sure of not doing this, one needs to have some guidance about what is appropriate; and it has to make sense, to hang together intuitively.
There is no problem in
There are formal inconsistencies, which can be detected by logical machinery. But there are also what one might call mismatches, where a formal ontology, while internally consistent, fails to conform to a human user's intuition so strongly that it becomes incomprehensible to them. Typically this is what gives rise to formally incompatible ontologies, when they are separately developed by folk with these divergent intuitions.
Simply being internally consistent does not guarantee that an ontology is intuitive or even comprehensible.
40 South Alcaniz St.
_________________________________________________________________ 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 (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology similarity and accurate communication, Patrick Cassidy|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology similarity and accurate communication, Pat Hayes|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology similarity and accurate communication, Patrick Cassidy|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology similarity and accurate communication, matthew.west|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|