STEP (as I say incessantly), separates out Product, version,
view, property, property-representation and representation-presentation,
and relates them pairwise in that order. It also has type/subtype,
has-a and has-role. The semantics of all these relations make them seem
fundamentally different, especially when coupled with the existance
rules of STEP relationships - e.g. A version must be a version of a Product,
it cannot exist independently. I could use "Has-a" for quite a number of
relationships, but given that the domains (thing, time, perspective,
*property-of, representation, appearance) are quite separate, it seems
that one is using the same presentation for independent properties, and
creating ambiguity where there should be none. (02)
*property-of - there is no such thing as property, rather the word
"property" signifies a language game where we can say something of
something else (the ink has the property blackness, the paper flatness,
the e-mail lateness). (03)
Bristol, UK (04)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> John F. Sowa
> Sent: 11 October 2008 02:00
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Looking forward at the past
> *** WARNING ***
> This mail has originated outside your organization, either
> from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> Pat and Don,
> I partially agree with that point:
> PC> When you try to "interoperate" with a plumber or any other
> > person, your chances of achieving successful communication
> depend on
> > both of you already sharing a very large basic vocabulary.
> But I'd replace "very large" with "an amount varying from
> almost nothing to a great deal". It would be more accurate
> to say "common assumptions about the subject domain",
> independent of whether those assumptions are stated in a
> common language or even a language of any kind.
> I also agree with the following point, but first we have to
> decide how to organize that foundational ontology.
> DC> The reason you can effectively communicate with the cast of
> > characters in your examples requires much, much more than
> the lowest
> > level task common definitions. Many of these things are of the sort
> > that would be in a foundational ontology.
> As I have said in various notes, my view of a foundational
> ontology consists of a large, but very sparsely axiomatized
> type hierarchy, which would primarily be based on two relations:
> type/subtype and part/whole. In fact, it might be better to
> think of it as little more than a well-designed taxonomy and
> meronomy for a large vocabulary.
> In addition to those very sparsely axiomatized terms, there
> must be specialized chunks or modules or microtheories of
> knowledge with much more detailed axioms. I think Don's list
> is fine, and it could be enlarged with a long list of
> esoteric areas that may be critical for certain applications.
> But in many cases, one party to the dialog may have vastly
> more knowledge about these esoteric topics than the other.
> DC> * Time
> * Location
> * Interdependencies in general and specifically for each domain
> * A host of concepts:
> -Residential building codes
> -competitive pricing
> -locale specific cuisine
> -context to parse the communications correctly
> But note that these come into play in *different* tasks with
> different people, who may have different kinds and amounts of
> knowledge about the shared task.
> A contractor usually has far more knowledge of building codes
> than the house owner and a dentist has vastly more knowledge
> about dental anatomy. In many cases, interoperability is
> successful *because* the amount and kind of knowledge is *asymmetric*.
> To return to my original point: When talking with the
> plumber, dentist, waiter, clerk, surgeon, contractor, etc.,
> the amount of shared vocabulary that the two parties require
> is generally a tiny fraction of what either one of them knows.
> Furthermore, the core intersection of vocabulary required for
> all six pairs of interactions is very tiny. The core
> intersection is seldom, if ever, verbalized. It is the
> common knowledge that dictionaries do not state explicitly.
> These are the reasons why I recommend a very sparsely
> axiomatized taxonomy and meronomy of terms. (Note that the
> definitions in Longman's dictionary leave out an enormous
> amount of information that would be required to use those
> terms effectively.) The basis for detailed reasoning is in
> the very specialized microtheories, of which one party may
> often know a great deal more than the other.
> Essential point: Many, if not most, kinds of
> interoperability are asymmetric: one party may have vastly
> more knowledge about the domain than the other. Even when
> the amounts of relevant knowledge are similar, the two
> parties may have very different kinds (e.g. manager and
> employee, contractor and subcontractor, CEO and accountant),
> and they communicate primarily on their common intersection.
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post:
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
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 (07)