Those are interesting questions, so I will take a stab at answers that
don't fully satisfy me. Perhaps we can deepen this discussion a bit.
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
John Bottoms wrote:
JB> There are a number of programmer's concepts
that have not
been explicitly touched upon. Here are my more recent
How do we specify between something strong typing and
typing in an ontology?
RC> Strong typing is a very valuable
construction tool in programming languages because it helps the programmer find
inconsistencies in his written expressions. I don't see the connection
between strong typing and ontologies. It's more a matter of how rigidly
and reliably a type can be wiggled by the programmer before the compiler
complains. I can use INTEGER for the number of wheels and not constrain
it, but that lets me work with vehicles that have 63 wheels, an unlikely
vehicle other than a train, or 0 wheels, like a bicycle in a repair shop.
So strong typing is useful if I use it to
discipline my program writing. But in an ontology, it’s FINDING out
what type an object has that's important - not specifying its type, IMHO.
And, there is the issue of counts in specifying the
items in a set. SGML allows elements to be a)required,
or more or c)one or more. Actually, I would like to go
that for clarity and have a count or be able to
count to a range. (Is this the same question as the
The base type of plurality should be subdivided
into different kinds of pluralities - sets, queues, tries ... having a COUNT
property built into the class plurality and inherited in one way or another by
each structure type.
For bicycle, I must have 2 wheels.
For vehicle, I might specify it as one or more, to
For a bicycle, do I have to specify front_wheel and
to assure that I get two wheels?