ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] [SPAM] Re: An Ontology Modeling DifferentAgeGroups

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:58:26 +0200
Message-id: <00f201c9ae3c$76d04040$a104810a@homepc>
 
Jeffrey wrote:
"UML has two composition associations. In the aggregation, the parts exist whether the whole exists or not. A football team still exists even after the game is over, when all the players have gone home. In the compostion, the parts vanish. This enables constructors and destructors in software code, for example."
 
If its in the UML schema, then it must be a category mistake, to treat which the ontology serves.
Any team is a collection of subjects, any game is a human activity, so these different things of different kinds hardly make a whole as a single entity.
Any whole incorporates the parts or elements of the same kinds and nature. There are generally several types of wholes:
1. the wholes made of substances or objects;
2. the wholes composed of states (properties, qualities or quantities);
3. the wholes consisting of actions or processes;
4. the wholes involving parts-relationships.
 
Returning to the subject of the thread: how to model age groups. To resolve the issue, the modeler needs to decide what is a human being: 
an organic whole of substances, or a temporal whole of states, changes, and relationships?
Another thing, the parts are never 'vanish'. The whole and its parts affect each other in a mutual reciprocal way. For real systems this fundamental rule goes as the whole-part causation and the part-whole causation mechanisms.
 
Azamat Abdoullaev
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] [SPAM] Re: An Ontology Modeling DifferentAgeGroups

UML has two composition associations. In the aggregation, the parts exist whether the whole exists or not. A football team still exists even after the game is over, when all the players have gone home. In the compostion, the parts vanish. This enables constructors and destructors in software code, for example.
 
This sort of discussion came up in the conceptual graphs list a while ago, during postings regarding the wholeness of a watch when a spring was replace (still same watch), and when a body of water was separated into two parts.
 
Regards,
 
-- Jeff Schiffel
 
 

From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@xxxxxxxxx]
Does ?part? imply a UML 2.0 composite binary relationship? What the relationship between mother and offspring is is different.  Composite implies that the part is ?part of? the whole and when the timeline for the whole ends, the timeline for the parts also ends.  As Cecil correctly noted, there are obvious exceptions to this.

The special dependency for this type of relationship is that the offspring is in a special ?made from? relationship to two parents.  Once certain events are past, the dependency (or some of it) disappears to the point where most offspring outlive their parents.  For example, after the father?s sperm is contributed, there is no real need for the father other than support (obviously I am being very un-emotional here so no flames please).  As soon as the fetus is of a certain age, the dependency upon the mother is also somewhat reduced as medical professionals and society can help the child survive outside the womb.  Again, this is totally not considering the emotional requirements, only basic survival.  Obviously a child probably fares better with two living parents devoted to the child?s wellbeing.

Interesting discussion however.

Duane


On 3/25/09 4:34 PM, "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Cecil (and Chris)

I would paraphrase your concerns differently:
The standard definition of "part" is not appropriate.
The parasite is a kind of  "foreign part", not a "natural
part" of an organism.   A different term should be used
in this context.

So you could blame me for mis-using "part".
Or you could blame a particular ontology.
Don't blame epistemology.

ditto for fetus.

Dick

> Well, I have run into this issue before (trying to use Dolce as a top
> level for parasitic infections where they go through life forms)and I
> would simply say that this view is exactly why epistemology has no place
> in  real world (at least health care) ontologies.
>
> Cecil
>
> Richard H. McCullough wrote:
>> From the viewpoint of metaphysics/epistemology,
>> a fetus is not a human being, it is a part of a human being
>> (the mother). After birth, it is a human being (the newborn).
>>
>>
>>     *From:* Azamat <mailto:abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>>     development. That means abortion, in a sense, is a sort
>>     of killing of a human being by a human being.
>>     

_________________________________________________________________
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




_________________________________________________________________
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

_________________________________________________________________
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>