[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] [Obo-relations] Heterarchy & Hierarchy, oh my my

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 15:23:02 -0500
Message-id: <6C54841F-D10C-439B-97DF-AD3FFD5FE003@xxxxxxxx>
On May 2, 2008, at 2:59 PM, Ryan Kohl wrote:
> Why wouldn't 'married man' be a universal?    (01)

Looks like Werner's idea is that "defined classes" are not  
universals.  As if universals (relative to an ontology, I guess) have  
to be primitives of the system.  Or something.  I guess they can make  
that choice, but I'd agree with you that it makes rather more sense to  
countenance both "MAN" and "MARRIED MAN" as universals and distinguish  
instead between primitive universals and "complex" or "defined"  
universals.    (02)

> Even underBarry Smith and Pierre Grenon's definition (from 
> , a universal "is an entity with a spatiotemporal existence which is  
> yet distinct from its extension (the set of its instances) at any  
> given time." (page 1, 2nd paragraph).    (03)

They really say that?  So NATURAL NUMBER has a spatio-temporal  
existence?    (04)

-chris    (05)

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    (06)

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