At 4:18 PM -0400 5/2/08, Werner Ceusters wrote:
>Oops and sorry. I got W's original mail through the OBO rel weblist. I
>didn't want to spam on the ontolog forum.
>Please accept my apologies. (01)
No apologies needed. But your views are very
interesting, and I would like to see your
responses to the substantive issues being raised. (02)
> from [Ryan Kohl] [Permanent Link][Original]
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> From: Ryan Kohl <kohl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 15:59:13 -0400
> Message-id: <481B7291.4000806@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Why wouldn't 'married man' be a universal? By most standard ontological
>definitions, a universal is something that can be instantiated by more
>than one thing (e.g. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties/).
>Even under Barry Smith and Pierre Grenon's definition (from
>http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bfo/SQU.pdf), 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). What
>am I missing here? (01)
>> 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.
>> 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 principles.
>> 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
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
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)