Hi Pat, (01)
Would you mind giving us (me?) a couple of clarifications? (02)
PH>when some basic advances in logic showed that the traditional
'layering' of descriptions into individuals/classes/properties/
metaclasses/etc. was (a) not necessary and (b) expressively very
restrictive. One can keep the categories but abandon the strict
layering - in effect, allowing a given thing to be in many 'layers' at
once - and no disasters arise, if one cleaves to a certain simple,
natural syntactic discipline (which is built into both Common Logic
and RDF). The result is greatly increased expressivity and a formalism
which 'naive' users invariably find quite natural, and which makes
perfect semantic sense. (03)
Is there somewhere we can find more details on this 'basic advance'? (04)
Agree about the advantages of de-layering, but think that in a wider
community we need to be careful about the senses of the terms we are using.
For example, can you clarify what is meant by 'individual' here? I know
there are a range of possible senses. I assume that here it not individual
in the Aristotelian sense of primary substance - something that, by
definition, cannot have members (as "one thing can be both an individual and
a class (and a property) in the very same ontology"). (05)
Regards,
Chris (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)
|