|To:||"Charles P. White" <charles.p.white@xxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Cc:||"[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|From:||Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Thu, 1 May 2008 20:45:41 +0200|
At 10:58 AM -0700 5/1/08, Charles P. White wrote:
Often referred to as 'multiple inheritance'. They are quite common in ontology work.
according to perspective."
That sounds like a rather general and permissive kind of definition. Do you really need to go that far? Would it be enough to have something like a hierarchy - a tree - but to allow branches to merge downwards, so that a given entry might be on more than one path from the root? A directed acyclic graph (DAG) rather than a tree? Notice this still has the property that going downwards on any given branch gives you progressively smaller categories, and it rules out 'loops' of inheritance.
You can't, other than by obvious tricks such as having a collection of such designators for each item. But why do you need to? You can maintain the structure in other ways. For example, an RDF triple store can represent an arbitrary DAG structure, and all that is required is that each entry have a unique name of some kind.
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 vs OWL implementation, Bill Andersen|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs OWL implementation, Pat Hayes|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Heterarchy & Hierarchy, oh my my, John F. Sowa|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Heterarchy & Hierarchy, oh my my, ZENG, MARCIA|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|