Re: [ontolog-forum] (no subject)

To:	"[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Partridge <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From:	Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date:	Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:33:49 -0600
Message-id:	<4E7496B9-28CD-4CC3-9FB7-DBCF44809776@xxxxxxx>

On Feb 11, 2009, at 1:59 PM, Chris Partridge wrote:

5AEC9A7568@ihm
c.us>
In-Reply-To: <256CFA65-DEEA-48DA-8BA2-125AEC9A7568@xxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:00:07 -0000
Message-ID: <006e01c98c83$579de5e0$06d9b1a0$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006F_01C98C83.579DE5E0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
thread-index: AcmMgU3CfLmt3dchSfaDn9WC5cXSqAAAIM3A
Content-Language: en-gb

This is a multipart message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_006F_01C98C83.579DE5E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

PatH,

I am being a little lazy here.

On a project recently, working with a logician, who is familiar with OWL,
etc. - i.e. a good CV. I asked if he could find out what 'Individual' in OWL
meant?

I don't think the OWL spec uses the term significantly, in fact.

He said something like:

"As far as I know, there is no official OWL definition of individual.

Because of OWL Full, I would say that an individual is an OWL object that
has no OWL instances."

Hmm, that seems odd to me, particularly the reference to OWL Full. I can't quite see what he was thinking here.

[Later: Maybe I do. If it was clear in this conversation that you were using "individual" in a metaphysical sense, especially (given the OWL context) in an explicit contrast to the notion of class, then indeed, OWL Full would pose a problem, as OWL Full, like RDFS and Common Logic, simply refuses to acknowledge any such distinction. In these languages, everything that can be named can be considered to be a class; indeed, can be considered to have any ontic status you like (individual, class, property, relation, function; in IKL the list extends to include propositions.) One might say that these languages are radically anti-metaphysical, in that they refuse to logically recognize any such distinctions. If one wishes to impose them, then, one must do so in axioms, in an explicit metaphysical ontology. And this may have been what your friend was referring to: that something is (better: can be) a metaphysical individual just when the OWL axioms do not require it to be a non-individual, ie not a class or a property. However, this is not true for OWL-DL, which imposes a traditional FO-style stratification between individuals, properties and classes, and does not permit them to mix. Thus, the universe of quantification in OWL-DL contains no classes or properties or other abstracta (and though it does contain numbers, they are carefully isolated) and so can be seen with equinamity as consisting also of metaphysical "individuals".]

What is the 'official' logic/KR definition?

OK, my understanding is that an individual is simply any element of the domain of discourse; anything in the currently accepted universe; a thing in the set over which the quantifiers range; an entity which can stand in relations to other entities. All of these are synonymous. It is not a metaphysical classification: it does not separate the ontic universe into two kinds of thing, one kind more 'individuated' than the other. (Speaking personally, now, I have never understood what such a distinction could possibly mean.) To say that something is not an individual is simply to say that it cannot be spoken of in the formalism currently in use. For example, classical FOL refuses to allow the relations and properties denoted by its own predicate and relation symbols into its universe of discourse: it refuses to accord them the status of individuals. However, one can perfectly well have two FO theories, in which the relations of one theory are the individuals of the other theory. Being an individual is therefore a status which can only be meaningfully stated relative to a way of talking or describing the world: one description's individuals may not be anothers'. (This limitation of FOL is exactly what we eliminated in Common Logic.)

This usage is rather similar to the way that the W3C uses "resource". Absolutely anything can be an individual or a resource: the words do not identify any inherent property or attribute of the thing itself, but rather indicate what might be called a stance adopted towards the thing. So for example, set theory is usually stated with the presumption that the individuals being described are all and only the sets. Mereology is usually axiomatized with the presumption that the individuals are all and only mereological sums. So is a set an individual or not? If you are talking set theory, yes: if mereology, no.

As an aside, maybe you can see how confusing it is to be told that "individual" means a spatiotemporal entity. What does this claim? If I understand "individual" as above, then its just a declaration that the theory is a variant on spatioetmporal mereology: its a theory about spatiotemporal things. Which is fine, of course. But maybe it doesn't mean that at all: maybe its just announcing a different usage of the word "individual", and the theory being described can have these but also many other kinds of entity in its universe (and now I must not say, "of individuals".) An analogy: an owner of a French restaurant tells me that customers are Frenchmen. Is he telling me a fact about his clientele, or is he re-defining "customer"?

And does OWL follow it?

AFAI recall, we understood the word to have the above meaning, though the word "individual" may not have been used a lot there as the W3C prefers "resource" (which I abhor, but it was a W3C spec document.)

And if
not why not? And if it does, is my colleague right that they do not state
this clearly?

I wouldn't expect the OWL spec to attempt to define such a basic term as this. I did try to provide an informative glossary for the RDF specs, but I see that I didn't include "individual", unfortunately.

I would like to be clear on this because I have come across a number of
different claims.

Philosophers tend to use it in a number of senses

Yes, but we aren't here doing philosophy, right? We are doing ontology engineering.

(one factor being whether
their version of general things is "indivisible") as apparently does
Wordnet. Wikipedia accords "statistics and metaphysics" (in that order) more
priority for the term than logic and knowledge representation.

Priority?? And aren't we, in this forum, talking about logics (in a broad sense, ie formalisms for description) and KR, rather than statistics or metaphysics?

Pat

Definitions of individual on the Web:

. being or characteristic of a single thing or person; "individual
drops of rain"; "please mark the individual pages"; "they went their
individual ...

. separate and distinct from others of the same kind; "mark the
individual pages"; "on a case-by-case basis"

. person: a human being; "there was too much for one person to do"

. characteristic of or meant for a single person or thing; "an
individual serving"; "single occupancy"; "a single bed"

. individual(a): concerning one person exclusively; "we all have
individual cars"; "each room has a private bath"

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

. As commonly used, individual refers to a person or to any specific
object in a collection. In the 15th century and earlier, and also today
within the fields of statistics and metaphysics, individual means
"indivisible", typically describing any numerically singular thing, but
sometimes meaning ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual

You mis-use established terminology ("individual" here being the worst
culprit: that isn't what everyone else means by "individual".

[MW] That's a bit vacuous. There is hardly any word that does not have a
large number of meanings, and at least this is one of the meanings that
individual has been used for.

Perhaps I should have said, throughout the literature on logic and knowledge
representation.

------=_NextPart_000_006F_01C98C83.579DE5E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:x=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" =
xmlns:p=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" =
xmlns:a=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" =
xmlns:dt=3D"uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" =
xmlns:s=3D"uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" =
xmlns:rs=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z=3D"#RowsetSchema" =
xmlns:b=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" =
xmlns:ss=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" =
xmlns:c=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" =
xmlns:odc=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:odc" =
xmlns:oa=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" =
xmlns:html=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" =
xmlns:q=3D"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:D=3D"DAV:" =
xmlns:x2=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" =
xmlns:ois=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" =
xmlns:dir=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" =
xmlns:ds=3D"http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" =
xmlns:dsp=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" =
xmlns:udc=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" =
xmlns:xsd=3D"http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" =
xmlns:sub=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/"=
xmlns:ec=3D"http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" =
xmlns:sp=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" =
xmlns:sps=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" =
xmlns:xsi=3D"http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" =
xmlns:udcs=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/soap" =
xmlns:udcxf=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" =
xmlns:udcp2p=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/parttopart" =
xmlns:wf=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" =
xmlns:dsss=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig-setup" =
xmlns:dssi=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig" =
xmlns:mdssi=3D"http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/digital-sig=
nature" =
xmlns:mver=3D"http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006=
" xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" =
xmlns:mrels=3D"http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationshi=
ps" xmlns:spwp=3D"http://microsoft.com/sharepoint/webpartpages" =
xmlns:ex12t=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types"=
=
xmlns:ex12m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messag=
es" =
xmlns:pptsl=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/SlideLibrary/=
" =
xmlns:spsl=3D"http://microsoft.com/webservices/SharePointPortalServer/Pub=
lishedLinksService" xmlns:Z=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" =
xmlns:st=3D"" xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>

</style>

</head>

<body lang=3DEN-GB link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple style=3D'word-wrap: =
break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;-webkit-line-break: after-white-space'>

<div class=3DSection1>

PatH,<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

I am being a little lazy here.<o:p></o:p>

On a project recently, working with a logician, who is =
familiar with
OWL, etc. – i.e. a good CV. I asked if he could find out what =
‘Individual’
in OWL meant?<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

He said something like:<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

“As far as I =
know,
there is no official OWL definition of individual.<o:p></o:p>

Because of OWL Full, I =
would
say that an individual is an OWL object that has no OWL =
instances.”<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

What is the ‘official’ logic/KR definition? =
And does
OWL follow it? And if not why not? And if it does, is my colleague right =
that
they do not state this clearly?<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

I would like to be clear on this because I have come =
across a
number of different claims.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

Philosophers tend to use it in a number of senses (>factor
being whether their version of general things is =
“indivisible”) as
apparently does Wordnet. Wikipedia accords “statistics and =
metaphysics”
(in that order) more priority for the term than  logic and
knowledge representation. <o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

Definitions of individual on the =
Web:<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

<![if !supportLists]>·       
<![endif]>being or characteristic of a single thing or person;
"individual drops of rain"; "please mark the individual
pages"; "they went their individual ...<o:p></o:p>

<![if !supportLists]>·       
<![endif]>separate and distinct from others of the same kind; =
"mark
the individual pages"; "on a case-by-case =
basis"<o:p></o:p>

<![if !supportLists]>·       
<![endif]>person: a human being; "there was too much for >person
to do"<o:p></o:p>

<![if !supportLists]>·       
<![endif]>characteristic of or meant for a single person or thing; =
"an
individual serving"; "single occupancy"; "a single
bed"<o:p></o:p>

<![if !supportLists]>·       
<![endif]>individual(a): concerning one person exclusively; =
"we all
have individual cars"; "each room has a private bath" =
<o:p></o:p>

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn<o:p></o:p>

<![if !supportLists]>·       
<![endif]>As commonly used, individual refers to a person or to any
specific object in a collection. In the 15th century and earlier, and =
also
today within the fields of statistics and metaphysics, individual means
"indivisible", typically describing any numerically singular =
thing,
but sometimes meaning ...<o:p></o:p>

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

<div style=3D'border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm =
0cm 4.0pt'>

<div>

<div>

<div>

<div style=3D'border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm =
0cm 4.0pt;
border-width:initial;border-color:initial'>

<div>

<div>

 <o:p></o:p>

</div>

<div>

You mis-use established
terminology ("individual" here being the worst culprit: that =
isn't
what everyone else means by "individual". <o:p></o:p>

</div>

<div>

 <o:p></o:p>

</div>

<div>

[MW] That’s a bit vacuous. There is hardly any word =
that
does not have a large number of meanings, and at least this is one of =
the
meanings that individual has been used for.<o:p></o:p>

</div>

</div>

</div>

</div>

</div>

<div>

<o:p> </o:p>

</div>

Perhaps I should have said, throughout the =
literature on
logic and knowledge representation. <o:p></o:p>

</div>

<o:p> </o:p>

</div>

</div>

</body>

</html>

------=_NextPart_000_006F_01C98C83.579DE5E0--

_________________________________________________________________
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

------------------------------------------------------------

IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973

40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office

Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax

FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile

phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes


_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology - Pat's 5 questions, (continued) Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology - Pat's 5 questions, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology - Pat's 5 questions, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology - Pat's 5 questions, Mike Bennett Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Matthew West Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology - clay, beer, and castles built on swamps, Ian Bailey Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Matthew West Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Matthew West [ontolog-forum] (no subject), Chris Partridge Re: [ontolog-forum] (no subject), Pat Hayes <= Re: [ontolog-forum] (no subject), Chris Partridge Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, Ali Hashemi Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, Ali Hashemi Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, Александр Шкотин Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, John F. Sowa

Previous by Date:	Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology - Pat's 5 questions, Matthew West
Next by Date:	Re: [ontolog-forum] An Ultra High Level Ontology-TIME, Pat Hayes
Previous by Thread:	[ontolog-forum] (no subject), Chris Partridge
Next by Thread:	Re: [ontolog-forum] (no subject), Chris Partridge
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]