[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "Werner Ceusters" <ceusters@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 00:02:36 -0400
Message-id: <p0623090ac442e54d47e8@[]>
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)

Pat    (03)

>       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".
>>  w
>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
>    (04)

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
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes      phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections    (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>