Ed, (01)
I liked "WholePart(X,Y)" which I take to mean that X is a whole and Y is a
part of X at this moment in time. (02)
I don't see that its necessary to distinguish between various kinds of
temporal conditions - temporal information can be organized independently of
the WholePart(X,Y) statement. There is no value in adding something about
"X used to be a whole with Y a part of it", or "X will become a whole with Y
as a part of it". Those conditions can be better modeled with relations
pertaining to time - temporal logic predicates for example. (03)
While it would be nice to have axioms relevant to the items in the tree,
that seems to add a great deal of complexity at a time when we can't even
seem to agree on these simple concepts mentioned in Ian's tree. We have to
stop modeling at some point to have a finished ontology, even if the
ontology is not perfect, or even suitable for certain tasks. It is enough
if an ontology like Dublin Core is developed for the concepts in Ian's tree. (04)
-Rich (05)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com (06)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed Barkmeyer
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 3:57 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] An Ultra High Level Ontology (07)
Rich Cooper wrote:
> Adding Ian's extra category:
>
> -wholePart (individual,individual)
>
> to my previous email suggesting an ultra high level ontology basis,
> see the modified ontology below. (08)
Does anyone know what wholePart means? (09)
As I recall, some published paper on Whole-Part relationships identified
22 possible axioms (although many of them require a 4D universe to have
meaning). So wholePart is a category of relations that have exactly
which axioms in common? Are they all antisymmetric? are they all
transitive? are they 'perdurant'? Etc. (010)
I don't doubt that the specification at least tries to define these
things carefully. I do doubt that its definitions are axiomatic. But
we are ill-advised to judge anything from a list of indented terms. (011)
(And Ian must be careful how much he publishes to this group, because
such publication has the potential for violation of ISO copyright.) (012)
-Ed (013)
--
Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 (014)
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (017)
|