[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Last Call: OWL 2 and rdf:text primitive datatype

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: John Bottoms <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:02:29 -0400
Message-id: <49F744B5.8050906@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Ah, finally a place for those pesky pegasus' and griffins!!    (01)

Now about "entity". I'm confused as to what this is used
for. I've seen several descriptions including what JS (KR) says:    (02)

"A pronounceable synonym for "T". It can be used as a default
  type label for anything of that type".    (03)

And when I look for "T", it shows up on the previous page as
"The universal type..." just below Figure B.1 which shows <cap>T
as the root of all entities.    (04)

So, am I to assume there is only one (1 and only 1) "T" that
refers to the root? Or should I assume it is the universal
pronoun for anything that needs to be referred to indirectly
within a context? If it refers to the root then that is a
useful referent to the starting point of a graph or for a
search.    (05)

I do see nouns ("object") and verbs ("process") in the Lattice,
but I don't see "concept". Is it buried in there somewhere?    (06)

Perhaps we should work through the list of: "class, set, concept,
type, entity, attribute, function (or method), object, element(?),
process", and define how they are used. That would give us more
insight into how they are defined.    (07)

I say this because it seems to me that what has been overlooked in
the syntactic/semantic/pragmatic discussion is that each must
interface with something else. For example, it is the 'responsibility'
of syntax to produce only those instances whose structure can be
correctly processed by the semantic methods. Anything else means that
the syntactic function is passing poorly structured data and it is
not doing its job. Perhaps this is what is meant by "semantics must
preceed syntax".    (08)

-John Bottoms
  First Star Networks Inc.
  Concord, MA
  T: 978-505-9878    (09)

John F. Sowa wrote:
> Pat and Mike,
> PC> In COSMO I use ‘IntentionalAgent’ to cover sentient animals
>  > as well as machines that have decision-making capability.
> MB> We use "Autonomous Thing" to cover the same meaning, though
>  > some people questioned what it meant to be truly autonomous,
>  > so maybe Intentional is better.
> Linguists use the term 'animate', which includes all animals,
> including humans.  I would generalize it to include robots,
> angels, and other natural, supernatural, artificial, and
> imaginary agents.  That term has the advantage of traditional
> usage in linguistics and lexicography.
> John    (010)

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    (011)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>