Werner Ceusters wrote:
> BFO and OBO aim for representation that is faithful to reality, not for
> computational efficiency or "easyness" of reasoning.
> BFO for sure, and good OBO ontologies (there are not many yet) represent
> universals. The monohierarchy applies to universals. "married man" does not
> denote a universal, so would never be present in a good OBO ontology.
that's the handwaving, no? how do we know that monohierarchy apply to
universals? because BFO says so. how do we know BFO represents
universals (and is faithful at that)? because it is a realist ontology.
the fact that you aim at something does not in any way prove the matters
are as you say they are. (01)
> If there are places in OBO ontologies where the priority of distinction is
> an issue, then that probably is a place where some mistake against the "only
> universals" rule is made. Better to correct such mistakes, than to relax the
the 'only universals' dream? (03)
> If you want to have "married man" in some application ontology (in contrast
> to reference ontologies as BFO and what OBO ontologies ought to be), then it
> could go there as a defined class, defined on the basis of the universals
> "man" and "marriage".
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 (06)