Dear Pat, (01)
<snip>
> > Some ontology developers have no criteria for identity at all. In an
> > intensional ontology, it is OK to have the types Equiangular
> > Triangle and
> > Equilateral Triangle. It isn't OK in an extensional ontology like
> > ISO15926,
> > BORO or IDEAS, because there is only one extent defined by both
> > terms.We
>
> > are also ruthlessly extensional on individuals - if two things have
> > the same
> > spatial and temporal extent, they are the same thing.
>
> That isn't what 'extensional' means. Everything would be a lot easier
> if y'all used the terminology properly. But why do you think that
> strict extensionality (in your sense, here) is so desirable? What is
> the advantage to all this extensional rigor? (02)
[MW] It saves all the argument about one persons intuitions vs another
persons intuitions as to whether there is or is not a figment of their
imagination, or whatever. (03)
> Seems on the face of
> things that there can be more than one way to describe a given piece
> of space/time, eg the famous example of a vase being also a chunk of
> plastic, yet having properties (like, being a vase) that the chunk of
> plastic doesn't have. (04)
[MW] Well actually that piece of plastic does precisely have the property of
being a vase, what else is there to be the vase but the piece of plastic?
Now very often the piece of plastic will have a longer life than the vase,
and there will be two distinct spatio-temporal extents. However, when they
have (accidentally) the same spatio-temporal extent, they will equally
accidentally share all their properties, so it will be no problem that they
are actually just one object.
>
> >
> >
> > It's no good having everyone agree to use the UHLO (I think the
> > acronym
> > could catch on !), if they all have a different understanding of
> > what the
> > categories map onto in the real world.
> >
> > We (Matthew, Chris and I) use this extensional approach because
> > we're in the
> > dirty business of data integration - we have to deal with real stuff
> > in
> > transactional systems.
>
> So why does data integration require extensionality (in your sense,
> here)? (05)
[MW] It's only pragmatic. It's the worst way to build an ontology (apart
from all the others). (06)
Regards (07)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 560 302 3685
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (08)
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|